Cpl Kendall wrote:
You mind explaining the bold.
I engage in hyperbole but a serious shitstorm was launched in regards to this. Judging by google/wiki results it was a defining moment of the "out in the open" show under Paula Zahn and for some of the panelists involved. Wasn't just an after the fact thing either, apperantely they took so much crap they brought on Richard Dawkins to play a little slow pitch softball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTZONIl5 ... re=related
and then they did the panel thing thing again with Ellen Johnson.
I don't know if I want to call appeasement on that, but their attempt to reach out by making an episode more focused on the atheist thing along with some major atheist leaders didn't seem to matter in your opinion of them.
The irony of the situation is that Zahn or one of the editors was really on the Atheists side in the first episdoe. The story was clearly sympathetic to the atheists. They actually ran the story and brought up the issue while other shows generally aren't so friendly. And then they get burned at the stake because they didn't make it the primary focus of the episode and brought on panelists to talk about the main topic of the episode, racism.
Or you know, that Americans treat Athiests like fourth class citizens. Behind blacks, hispanics and muslims.
Which, again, was reported in the story they ran in the episode you're busting Zahns ovaries about and using as a basis for right wing bias on CNNs part.
I mean really. Do you think that story was anything but sympathetic to the atheists and attempting to bolster their civil rights? Do you think a network running that makes them MORE right wing?