Something someone just pointed out on voat: CNN's people actually called "actors"
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
Voat is back?
searchvoat.co
not back for posting in subs, but search is available
I think the "just posted" is what confused Donny.
Ah gotcha
I think it became talk.lol
Of course their actors, they don’t do anything other than read a script and virtue signal the desired emotions for the consumers to pantomime.
This looks like just like someone doing an odd web search.
"cast of CNN" which the search engine treats like a regular tv show
If you search Google for "hosts of CNN," you get this
Broadcasters/ CNN instead of Actors / CNN
So these just looks like a different search results template/language being used depending on what you searched.
Good catch.
There's also a difference between journalists and program hosts. Many people seem to think that just because a person works on camera for a news agency, such as CNN, they are journalists or news anchors.
But many of them are opinion hosts or opinion anchors. They don't have the same legal/ethical constraints that news anchors do. Because it's their opinion.
This is something that really bothers me, that so many of the public can't tell opinions from facts, and just believe someone based only on the host being on television. It's just ignorant.
News anchors don't have legal constraints outside from things like defamation laws. Take a look at Fox, they just paid nearly a billion dollars in a defamation suit, but nobody involved would be charged with a crime.
For major news organizations it would be the producer who is responsible for what goes on air. There's also something called an opinion journalist.
Legal restraints are rather important when suing someone for slander and libel.
Those are civil not criminal and they apply equally to opinion hosts and regular news hosts.
There's no difference.
You might want to go tell all those lawyers who have sued "opinion hosts/anchors" for slander and libel cases only to lose because judges/juries determine that opinion hosts are not held to the same levels as news hosts. There are actual laws on the books detailing the difference between news/journalism reporting and opinion hosts.
They might only be civil cases, but they can cost you millions of dollars.
There most certainly is a legal difference between the two. An important one.
I don't understand why you're arguing there aren't. What is it about this that bothers you, specifically?
Do you believe opinion anchors should have the same credibility as news anchors? Because that's the impression I'm getting.
I'm arguing this is not true.
The laws regarding defamation apply to news hosts, opinion hosts or you or me all the same way.
It's broader than journalism. I think you are conflating certain things.
If you can point to such a law, I'll look at it
Think of how many times they did cameo appearances in movies etc...
E.G. - Glenn Beck in Nefarious
bidans inauguration is on IMDb too
No way. I just looked and there's an "Inauguration Day" on there. It says it's in development so the only way to see the "cast" or "writers", etc. is if you're on Imdb pro
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13880940/fullcredits
A "TV special" LMAO
I wouldn't read too much into IMDB's listings. Trump also has an IMDB listing with his inauguration.
I don't but why
Probably so they don’t get sued for lying and say it was for entertaining purposes
That's literally been the defense Alex Jones has used in court, that it's all entertainment and not real or meant to be believed. Though I think most people don't really consider him a real reporter or news anchor, some do.
Fox used this defense for a slander case Tucker Carlson was involved in, also. The judge ruled:
I just commented above about the general public's inability to understand the difference between journalists, news anchors, and opinion hosts. Too many people can't tell the difference between facts and opinions and will believe whatever a person says, simply because they appear on the air of a news organization.
It's really a sad commentary on the intelligence (or lack thereof) of the general public.
Precisely.
It's how they violate ethics.
Interesting. In local TV stations the presenters are called on air "talent"