CNN Xes Cheney — Design or Accident?

PuckSR You were disinvited from participation in this blog. Take the hint and take a hike. DaveScot

pmob...education is voluntary..with one exception children...they normally do not want to learn if a parent did not want their child to go to school...then that would not be in the child's best interest...however A parent can choose whatever education they wish for their child...if they are not satisfied by the secular government education...they can place them in a private school or home schooling...often geared towards a theistic mentality PuckSR

Gumpngreen, I do now. Thanks for the site. I think the long-term legal goal is to identify and decommission authoritarian controls. The Darwin debate is on the leading edge but not the only aspect of the controversy. No indoctrination without representation. Make all education voluntary. pmob1

Perhaps you meant to link to www.evolutionnews.org ? Gumpngreen

Puck, You appear to be unaware of Darwinist policing and lawsuits in American schools. It so happens there is an excellent website that reports on many such cases. You’ll find it at https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/ pmob1

pmob...your attitude is hostile You claim that Darwinism is supported by "police and lawyers". You are implying that Darwinists are using "evil" tactics to maintain their position...this would indicate that you believe that Darwinists are being "evil"...or at least dishonest purposefully dishonest=evil You seem to be attacking me...why? I have not stated any particular viewpoint on any issue yet. I have defended the word 'liberal'...that is all As far as turning the conversation political...this is the first political statement i made "CNN is a valid news source, if we judged a news source on suspected BIAS, then FOX news would fall to the back of the line. Two Words: Rupert Murdoch" This is not a truly political statement...Fox News has had more accusations of Bias than any other news source. Rupert Murdoch has had more accusations of being biased than anyone else(both in a political sense and a personal sense). It is completely absurd that two grown men cannot discuss something in a civilized manner. pmob either make an honest attempt at decent conversation about the topic or shut up. puckSR

Puck, I am not offended by the political meaning of “liberal.” Punch out “classical liberalism” and go to Wikipedia for starters. Basically, think of classical liberalism as liberty + personal property. If you hold close to those, you won’t go too far astray. For the relation between classical liberalism and innovation see F. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom. For a view on “liberal” science and the state, see the views of Polanyi at http://www.chemonet.hu/polanyi/9601/science2.html. Personally, I’d as soon leave the state out of it. I didn’t turn this discussion political, you did. I just provided the boomerang. Vilifying “the opposing political viewpoint” is not a “current trend.” It is a normal exercise these last 5000 years. Get someone else to kiss your booboo. I did not find “so many examples” of liberals being Marxists. I mentioned 2 out of 11 examples. That’s about 18%. However, I’m glad you’re pretending to distance yourself from Marxism. That’s a start. “Good vs evil” is not “at the center of the ID debate.” That’s just a reprise of the old “creationist” straw man. You guys frame it that way because you’re too fearful and lazy to confront the primary issue: getting the police and lawyers out of science. Again, see classical liberalism and Hayek. If you’re worried about the police and lawyers infesting religion, see Matthew 21:12 pmob1

pmob...>>???????? I was simply explaining that the word "liberal" is not a negative word. It may offend you, because you have learned to use it in reference to a political viewpoint that you oppose. The fact that you turned this political conversation only furthers my point. You really need to explain something to me. Why is the current trend to instantly villify the opposing political viewpoint. I believe that both Republicans and Democrats have done great things for the country. I think they have also both done horrible things for this country. It seems fairly well balanced to me. They are both human after all. I am glad that pmob1 could find so many examples of liberals being "marxists". Apparently liberal=Democrat=communist in pmob's world. I believe that this issue of good vs evil is also at the center of the ID debate. ID believers are good, evolution is evil. Conservatives are good, liberals are evil. The problem is that the opposition takes the exact same stance. Evolution is good, ID is evil Liberalism is good, conservatism is evil I will refrain from even bringing religion into the conversation..suffice it to say that this whole debate, as well as the liberal v conservative debate has turned into an orgy of hate...with a strong Machiavellian tendency...it doesnt matter what you say as long as you make the opposition look evil and incorrect. This is truly childish puckSR

Puck, when you wrote this did you mean to insinuate that conservatives want to turn back the clock on “liberals” or “lefties” or “WellstoneWienies “ or whatever? Slavery…still a good idea Inquistition…still a good idea public stoning…still a good idea women’s rights….shouldnt exist racial equality…what a joke Feudal System…fair enough Apartheid…yay for Apartheid Evolution…THE ONLY IDEA Ptolemic Universe…dont dare question it openminded…only fools tolerant…only wimps Slavery: Your beloved Marxists impounded the most slaves in human history. Inquisition: Institutionalized in all Marxist societies. Public stoning: Bush trying to stop this. “Liberals” oppose bombing the stoners. Women’s rights: Bush champions these. “Liberals” want women back in burkahs. Racial equality: Thank God Republicans came to power in 1861. Southern Democrats continued racist traditions right through Clinton’s mentor, Fulbright. Feudal System: Obviously you refer to the welfare state. Apartheid: Michael Moore hires less than 1% blacks. Same with other “liberals.” Ptolemic Universe: Question outmoded Darwinism and “liberals” will sue your ass off. Openminded: See Allan Bloom et al. “Liberals” are fossilized, ultra-orthodox. Rigidity and obsolescence are such that their ideas can only be maintained by the Science Police and 6 billion lawyers Tolerant: of ID you mean? pmob1

To the darwinist, morality is nothing more than an evolving social construct. anteater

wow Josh your openmindedness amazes me you completely twisted the definition of the word liberal I proved to you that it is not a bad thing to be liberal I still fail to see how you turned #1 into an atheistic immoral worldview..but wow // Yeah, your right though, we shouldnt change morality...ever Slavery...still a good idea Inquistition...still a good idea public stoning...still a good idea women's rights....shouldnt exist racial equality...what a joke Feudal System...fair enough Apartheid...yay for Apartheid Evolution...THE ONLY IDEA Ptolemic Universe...dont dare question it openminded...only fools tolerant...only wimps // puckSR

liberal- 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. wow–what a bad word -------------- Let's not kid ourselves and pretend that's what defines liberals and liberalism in American politics today. What next, "conservatives= people who don't want things to ever change and want to never reform any system. People who are close minded bigots who hate all non white males and want to be as intolerant as possible of new ideas" ?? Besides... 1. this is another way of saying anything goes, do what feels good, change morals and values and attitudes whenever you feel like it. No absolutes in regards to morality, traditions, laws, etc. 2. this is another way of saying tolerant (aka, refusing to make a moral judgement on behavior and such) of anything you want to do as long as it feels good for you. Open to new ideas that most people disagree with (such as abortion on demand, gay marriage, etc), but that's okay because you feel it's okay and you want to be "inclusive." If you get behind the fancy language, that's what you're usually left with in American liberalism. Josh Bozeman

PaV...how was Turner supposed to know about the operators actions? The calls are rarely supervised...I mentioned that the are occasionally and randomly listened to for quality assurance purposes. Your mad that CNN did not immediately launch an investigation of switchboard operators ? They should have launched the investigation because they didnt know about that call? Do you even understand why you are angry and I am naive? The only learned about the call when "Truthmedia" confronted them. This is just as stupid as the people who are mad at George Bush because his intel on Iraq was faulty. liberal- 1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. 2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded. wow--what a bad word puckSR

puckSR: The “audio evidence”? An operator answered the phone in a strange and unusual way…not the news anchor. Im sure something like this has happened at FOX, im sure it has happened at most phone banks. Ever heard that warning “your call may be recorded to assure Quality”? They do this for the explicit purpose of stopping this kind of behavior. puckSR, you're being naive again. And, you seem in denial. Yes, CNN fired this guy, etc. But let's remember, they said they launched an investigation immediately. Yet it wasn't until TruthMedia whatever confronted the station with ITS audiotape that something happened. Here's what CNN publicly said: ‘A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views — behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. ‘ So much for "quality control" purposes. If nothing had been said, this guy would still be working there. Open your eyes. PaV

"did you just use the word liberal as an insult?" Is there any other way? DaveScot

ooohhhh....did you just use the word liberal as an insult? Regardless, i am not biased, but i generally tend to believe that a simple explanation exists for most human-influenced events. I would definately refer to Hilary Clinton as a conspiracy nut if she thought a right wing conspiracy in the media was responsible for her husband's problems. I mentioned Rupert Murdoch, not because of a "conservative" bias, but because of a bias. Rupert Murdoch is trying to become the next WRH. I might say the same of Ted Turner, but i will refrain, only because Turner created CNN as an original media outlet...Rupert Murdoch seemed to be reacting more than anything else. Also, you missed the point of my statement. I was not claiming that CNN or FOX News were biased, but i was highlighting the fact that FOX news normally has more accusations of bias than CNN. The "audio evidence"? An operator answered the phone in a strange and unusual way...not the news anchor. Im sure something like this has happened at FOX, im sure it has happened at most phone banks. Ever heard that warning "your call may be recorded to assure Quality"? They do this for the explicit purpose of stopping this kind of behavior. puckSR

puckSR: "Ok…but the fact that one of the employees was insanely spiteful…does that mean that CNN is spiteful? CNN is a valid news source, if we judged a news source on suspected BIAS, then FOX news would fall to the back of the line. Two Words: Rupert Murdoch What is this even doing on this blog, except to point out that many ID supporters are paranoid conspiracy nuts? This is not helping the image of ID." puckSR, I never mentioned a conspiracy. I mentioned liberalism, and a blind eye. If, by your logic, I am a "paranoid conspiracy nut" for claiming that CNN has a liberal bias, then by that same logic, you're a "paranoid conspirac nut" for your above statement: if we judged a news source on suspected BIAS, then FOX news would fall to the back of the line. Two Words: Rupert Murdoch. Now I remember years ago Hilary Clinton claimed her husband's problems were the result of a "right wing conspiracy." Are you willing to now call her a "paranoid conspiracy nut"? The employee at CNN is out because he overstepped the line--and there's audio evidence for it. But what would have happened if this "audio evidence" had never made it to the internet? Has anything like this ever happened at Fox? And this is on this blog because you brought your liberal blind eye and naivete to this blog. PaV

The pattern X was not specified. It is a fabrication. Our resources include the set of all previous CNN broadcasts. X had never occurred before and clearly this occurrence could have been (and no doubt was) accidental. Wait a minute. The pattern X was specified as a member of the class of media events known as SIDATHEC (Sophomoric Ill-Disguised Attempt To Humiliate Exemplary Conservatives). Our resources include all MSM segments featuring conservatives since 1980 or the subset of all such segments featuring the [bloodless monster] Cheney. SIDATHEC events are rampant in Class I. A typical example is USA Today’s rendering of Condi Rice with kryptonite eyes in late October of this year. SIDATHEC occurs at an even higher frequency in Class II events, i.e. those featuring [the bionic troll] Cheney. Cheney is always pictured as Scowling Cheney, much as Gerald Ford, the most physically gifted athlete ever to hold the office of President, was always pictured as Bumbling Stumbling Ford. Reagan, the most intellectually sound President in 80 years, was always pictured as Bozo Reagan. Bush, who has consistently out-foxed the MSM for 15 years, is always Retarded Bush. Since frequency of SIDATHEC events is well over 50% in Class I and approximately 90% in Class II, the Xing of Cheney is probably not accidental, even if [the hideous Halliburton profiteer] Cheney were scowling at the time. Contrary to popular belief, [the artificial heartless] Cheney was not scowling at birth. He did not scowl until 6th grade, when his social studies teacher happened to speak well of the progressive income tax. pmob1

Ok...but the fact that one of the employees was insanely spiteful...does that mean that CNN is spiteful? CNN is a valid news source, if we judged a news source on suspected BIAS, then FOX news would fall to the back of the line. Two Words: Rupert Murdoch What is this even doing on this blog, except to point out that many ID supporters are paranoid conspiracy nuts? This is not helping the image of ID puckSR

The X was probably intentionally done by a partisan employee. The fact that the X is normally a cueing device only serves as evidence that the perpetrator had limited access to devices he/she could utilize. CNN of course doesn't want to admit it has partisan employees that will act out in such a manner. However, when one of those employees is caught red-handed they have no choice but to acknowledge it and fire the employee. Pretending that such employees don't exist is ludicrous on the face of it. Of course they do. CNN doesn't hire in a vacuum. DaveScot

Looks like I spoke to soon when criticizing Team Hollywood (kindof). From the dailypundit link: "I just got off the phone with Laurie Goldberg, Senior Vice President for Public Relations with CNN. Her statement confirms the authenticity of the tape recording and reveals the actions CNN took after learning of the incident: 'A Turner switchboard operator was fired today after we were alerted to a conversation the operator had with a caller in which the operator lost his temper and expressed his personal views -- behavior that was totally inappropriate. His comments did not reflect the views of CNN. We are reaching out to the caller and expressing our deep regret to her and apologizing that she did not get the courtesy entitled to her. ' " cambion

#52, have no idea if its true; just wanted to put up the link. Listen to the call here: http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/006044.php#006044 Who knows, it may be a hoax. Or it may be true. anteater

"CNN is a reputable news outlet" Now, about the price of that bridge in Brooklyn you about to buy from me... DonaldM

From the usnewswire link: "Callers were repeatedly told by CNN, "Tell the President and Vice-President Dick Cheney to stop lying." Team Hollywood's conversation with the newsdesk was recorded. When the tape is played back, amongst political statements being made by the network were the words that the "X" was intentional, as an act of free speech by CNN." You're taking Team Hollywood's word for it? I call BS. If CNN had admitted to purposely putting the X up, it would be all over the headlines. Instead, Team Hollywood has the unique scoop? From WorldNetDaily (about as far-right as one can get): "The TVNewser website obtained a statement from a CNN spokeswoman Laurie Goldberg, explaining: 'Upon seeing this unfortunate but very brief graphic, CNN senior management immediately investigated. We concluded this was a technological malfunction, not an issue of operator error. A portion of the switcher experienced a momentary glitch. We obviously regret that it happened and are working on the equipment to ensure it is not repeated.' " " 'We are taking this matter very, very seriously, and I can assure you no one at this network would ever deliberately place an 'X' over the vice president's face,' a top CNN source, who asked not to be named, said from New York." cambion

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57102 anteater

UCS tries to combine science with politics on many different issues. Take a gander at their site (google UCS) anteater

"Ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists?" In this capacity they are not doing *any* science. What's your point? cambion

#47, it seems there was both a black X and a white X; anyways, CNN is investigating this, according to drudge. anteater

Ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists? anteater

The text that is barely visible below the X reads "Transition begins after five frames of black," which I feel lends credence to the claim that this was a technical glitch. It would appear that the X image is used to center the shot on screen, or something like that. You can see some images that help show the text here: http://thedanreport.blogspot.com/2005/11/cheney-x-revealed.html Still, it does not rule out the posibility that a technician purposefully imposed the transition image over the Vice President. Tiax

From my perspective the interesting question isn't the politics of the matter but whether a design inference is warranted. Can Dembski's explanatory filter shed any light on this? Is the probablity of this event something that exceeds the Universal Probablitly Bond? Is this an instance of specified complexity? Dembski doesn't say, he just suggests that The Design Inference methodology can help provide an answer to the question. Does it? If so how and why? Eric

puckSR: "so conservative ID…not good for science" PaV: "So now we know you’re young, naive, arrogant and stupid. If you don’t have anything intelligent to say, then stay off the blog." Again, he makes a decent point (one which you certainly do not have to agree with) and you attack him, rather than attacking the point he is making. Mixing politics and science of any sort is bound to be bad for science. Science is supposed to be objective, politics is hardly so. I could just as well say: "so liberal Darwinism... not good for science" or "so conservative quantum mechanics... not good for science." I think it's quite terrible that you're promoting the corruption of science by political idealogy for material ends (promotion of ID over evolutionary theory). Give it time, the truth will win out... cambion

puckSR: name a prominent politician who is qualified to make any form of judgement on ID? that is tough now name a politician who supports ID who doesnt support the Christian Right? that is just as tough so conservative ID…not good for science So now we know you're young, naive, arrogant and stupid. If you don't have anything intelligent to say, then stay off the blog. PaV

"including both Intelligent Design and gay marriage" Replace "Intelligent Design" with "Darwinism" That was bound to confuse. Again, sorry. crandaddy

I still don't think it helps matters to slap a partisan label on ID. Issues should be considered according to their own merrits, and partisan labels polarize things, affecting a person's biases more than his rational judgement. Seems to me, the less entangled in the web of politics an issue is, the more rationally considered it is by the general public. Issues of faith tend to be the same way. And when you have both politics AND faith in the mix, well, that goes by a number of aliases including both Intelligent Design and gay marriage :) . I realize this post is loaded with relativism and ambiguous doublespeak. Sorry if I confuse anyone. If anybody wants me to clarify any part of this, I will. I just couldn't resist throwing that last bit in :) . crandaddy

name a prominent politician who is qualified to make any form of judgement on ID? that is tough now name a politician who supports ID who doesnt support the Christian Right? that is just as tough so conservative ID...not good for science puckSR

#39, because America is more conservative than liberal. ID can use conservatism's strength as a bootstrap. Name a prominent Democrat who is for ID. anteater

Well said crandaddy, Science != Politics Science != Religion cambion

"If ID gets tightly connected to conservatism, and Darwinism gets tightly connected to liberalism, that would be a great victory." How would that be a great victory? As far as I can see, the only people who would relish such a scenario are the extremist political polemicists who get their kicks out of bashing the other side and whatever they represent for no better reason than that they *are* the other side. Actually, if conservatism is to be considered keeping things the same and liberalism to be allowing greater freedoms, is the teaching of Intelligent Design not a more liberal act than a conservative one? David crandaddy

Hey...in PaV's defense He has to be defensive, otherwise the conspirators would get him puckSR

PaV writes: "My vote is that we stay on topic (ID), and try to be civil. Trading insults isn’t going to get us very far." This is after throwing the first stone: "You don’t understand how liberalism works–political correctness and hubris–and consequently you don’t see these same ideological behaviors at work in Darwinism. I bet you’re not 21." cambion

Having listened to House proceedings last Friday, I’d put the odds at about 403 to 3. That does not eliminate chance; not by a long shot. On the other hand, they don’t call it Clinton News Network for nothing. On the other hand, it’s just an X, not a swastika. A swastika plus insets of Nixon, Auschwitz and a little naked napalmed girl would sew it up for me. By means of those specifications, we eliminate chance through small probabilities. But just an X? On the other hand it was blinking and Cheney was not blinking. Cheney hasn’t blinked since 1979. pmob1

puckSR: You seem naive, and committed to staying naive. You don't want to read a book about media bias, written by someone who worked for CBS for years. Is this blissful ignorance? Leaving that to the one side, this "X" matter was originally reported as happening on 15 second intervals. I saw a clip that CNN ran earlier today. From that clip it looks like the "X" appeared only once. If it appeared only once, then I would say it's likely just a glitch. But, as I say, that's not how it was originally reported, and I don't trust CNN. It's entirely possible they simply showed only the last appearance (there's reasons for me to say that, without getting into the details). So, we'll see. If no one comes forward with "proof" that the "X" appeared more than once, I'll settle for it being a glitch. PaV

If ID gets tightly connected to conservatism, and Darwinism gets tightly connected to liberalism, that would be a great victory. anteater

Hmmm...i now have to tell you how old I am? As long as I am over the age of 21, legally my age is completely personal, and completely unnecessary to the conversation at hand. PaV...can you point me to the study where they compared the "balance" on Fox to the "balance" on other networks. Hasn't FOX news been criticized by numerous watchdog groups for being biased. Books.....I love to read, i really do, but I dont believe that publishing=credibility. Hitler got a book published too, so did David Iriving. Lets stick with facts, and not publishing. The awful file name for the picture....i dont know if you are aware, but frequently organizations do not maintain their own websites...Dembski is a rare exception.... They normally hire a company to maintain and update their site. The webmaster gets to name all of the media that will be linked by the HTML code. In this case there was definately some shenanigans, but it hardly violates journalistic integrity. "Well, first, it’s not made up of conservatives. Greta Van Susteren is not a conservative, nor Alan Colmes, nor, for that matter Bill O’Reilly." Wow...Alan Colmes is a moderate ex-comic....Bill O'Reilly is a registered republican...good thing that they have such strong "liberal" voices at that station Besides it doesnt really matter how many "conservatives" or "liberals" you have on the news...the news is always going to show the interesting "stuff". Right now, conservatives are interesting. Tough...they are going to get picked on Abu Grahib Whoa....that was a horrible rights violation, despite who is responsible, and it caused a great deal of unrest in Iraq. It was a big deal, no matter who was responsible. puckSR

geoffrobinson: Then please explain why the lettering, taken directly from Cheney's speech, shows up on the screen. PaV

I agree with puck. Now, it is possible to detect design. And this may end up being a prank. But I would go with computer program/cameraman. Both intelligent agents picking the center of the screen for basicly the same reason. The incident may be accident, but the reason behind it is due to design. geoffrobinson

From the Drudge Report: At the end of the speech the plan was to do, to have a CNN logo up on the screen and use that as the way of getting back from the speech back to you on camera and one of the many graphics we use here at CNN. MORE A majority of graphics we use on the air, we use as a big x to identify at what point should the tape be cued up. This is the x you see in the control room but it is never meant to be seen on the air..... That is what was being prepared during the speech and due to the technical glitch that happened with the switcher, it accidentally got on the air because of the switch. And it's the sort of thing that just like your computer will glitch and will suddenly lock up and do something weird, our equipment does the same thing on occasions. ot something we can re-create to show you what happened. Which is a really important point. First of all, a switcher is a machine, not a person. Correct. When we were talking about doing the segment and said, let's do it again. You can't make it happen on purpose. That's correct. For all the conspiracy theories out there and we want to have someone who is trying to make a statement about the nature of vice president cheney's speech, it's a computer bug. Ours was in front of millions of people. That is absolutely correct. As it goes. So, we're getting it fixed, i hope? Yes, much like you have to reboot your computer from time to time, we're going to reboot our computer from time to time to make sure it doesn't happen again. END Two points. First, I saw somewhere else--can't find it now--another shot of the VP and the X. Only this time it was WHITE. And the words at the bottom were clearly legible. They were the same words at the bottom of the picture, right next to the CNN letters: "Cheney: Questioning the war is not wrong," or something like that. Well, this puts the lie to what CNN is saying. If they use an "X" to mark where they're going to cue the tape from, then they don't need lettering of any sort. And the lettering is something someONE has to type in AS they're listening to the speech. So their explanation would appear to be a complete fabrication: it wasn't a machine, it was someONE, and it wasn't something they routinely do. Second, they say it's like when you have to "reboot your computer". Are you kidding? And just how long will it take them to "reboot" their computers? And why was the "X" flashing on and off for quite a while? In other words, how many place were they planning to cue up the tape? Can anyone say "Rathergate"? They think we're stupid. [Although some of us ARE young and naive--couldn't resist. ;)] PaV

dodgingcars: The claim of liberal bias isn’t that there just happens to be a natural bias in both reporting and the stories chosen because of the ideology and beliefs of the reporters. No. The claim is that the liberals in the media are making a purposeful attempt to undermine conservatives. It’s not a natural tendency for a big government democrat to pick stories about the poor and their plight, but instead it’s a liberal conspiracy in the media to make conservativism look bad. Does that mean that Fox News isn't biased, that it just prefers some stories to others because it's made up of conservatives? Well, first, it's not made up of conservatives. Greta Van Susteren is not a conservative, nor Alan Colmes, nor, for that matter Bill O'Reilly. Yet, Fox is called "conservative." Why? What's your explanation? CBS/NBC/ABC/CNN are all "balanced." Fox is "right-wing." Yet, when there's a panel discussion of the 'majors', you find 1 conservative and 2 to 3 liberals. On Fox, lots of times you find 1 conservative and 2 liberals. And, of course, that's "right-wing." This is just plain as day stuff. But, of course, if you're a Darwinist, even if something "appears" designed, it really isn't. So why concern yourself with appearances? (JeffK: this isn't an ad hominem, it's an insult again.) P.S. There was a wild extravaganza over religion, now over politics. My vote is that we stay on topic (ID), and try to be civil. Trading insults isn't going to get us very far. PaV

Cronkite- man that guy was terrible. He almost singlehandedly caused the US to "lose" the Vietnam war...tho, we only really lost it here at home with the peace hippies, when we were, in fact, winning the battles over in the theater. I work at a TV station and we sometimes do live events...never seen any graphic like this before. We hardly ever use notices like this transition after x amount of frames of black. Then again, it's a public TV station, so it's a bit different. :) I've read numerous comments from people in TV saying that this seems unlikely to be an accident. The tech guys at Fox and Friends this morning were saying that it looks like a deliberate act. I didn't see the footage myself, just a slowed version of 2 of the X shots. Given CNN's past problems with this sort of thing (see michellemalkin.com for her stories on this), it seems possible it was a purposeful act. The TV guys are divided tho, it seems. Drudge is reporting that s well placed source inside CNN said that when the X appeared, a bunch of guys in the control room at CNN Center were laughing about it. If this was unintentional, the average person in TV would have been freaking out wondering where the source for the feed or graphic was...why it was keyed in on screen, etc. Not laughing. That itself seems fishy. Josh Bozeman

puckSr: Maybe you would like to explain this: http://www.tabloidcolumn.com/cnn-bush-filename-asshole.html I'm sure it was just a glitch. PaV

That is not true dodgingcars. The point of view deeply affects the way a reporter and editors report on events. Look at how Cronkite deeply affected the public perception of the Vietnam War...look at how the economy is very strong, but all we hear about is how tough it is...look at how the reporting on homeless stories has tripled since Bush took office. This is a fact based upon actual number of stories run in the major news media. Look at Abu Ghraib which became a Waterloo when infact it was a poor decision at one prison. I can go on, but your observation is false. I appreciate your tone comment though. Dan Dan

Jeff: Nice counter PaV. I point out your ad hominem and you deflect with an Two Wrongs Make a Right. From one fallacy to another, but it took you over an hour. You’re slipping. Jeff, something is wrong with you if you think calling someone young and naive an ad hominemargument. It's a description, not an argument. And I can think of worse things to be called then young and naive, especially when someone is young and naive. You'll notice that he still hasn't said how old he is. Here's an insult: I'm surprised that you know how to spell fallacy. But that's still not an ad hominem. It's just an insult. And your argument, by the way, is fallacious. puckSR: everything is a conspiracy…you really, really, really think people are smart…you give them too much credit. When are we going to hear about you being abducted by aliens, but that the government covers it up. Instead of being such a wiseguy, why don't you read Bias by Bernard Goldberg. He was in CBS News for 15-20 years. And after that, maybe you'll be ready for his follow-up, Arrogance, from which I know you can learn a lot. dodgingcars: While the ideologies of the reporters, editors, etc. can certainly affect the news reporting, it’s still a giant leap to say that there is intentional liberal bias in the news because there are more liberal in the news media than conservatives. Just read: there's books out there, "Bias," and then "Arrogance." Goldberg's follow-up book is entitled "Arrogance" because with his first book, Goldberg tried to point out the the media elite the bias that had crept into their thinking and reporting. Much to his surprise (he, though not young, was also naive), he ended up getting black-balled from the 'fraternity'. His eyes finally opened. puckSR: It must be intentional..either by one of the people working the video feed, or by the intelligent agent….rare occurrences are impossible above a certain threshold. What happened to the VP has never before been known to happen. The odds of it happening by chance are extremely small. Yet that makes no impression on you puckSR. You just get silly, inebriated by your supposed superiority. That makes you a perfect candidate for believing in Darwinism. By the way, how many months over 21 are you? PaV

jboze3131, I just noticed that there were words underneath the "X". I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. Not sure what they would use it for. dodgingcars

Dan, While the ideologies of the reporters, editors, etc. can certainly affect the news reporting, it's still a giant leap to say that there is intentional liberal bias in the news because there are more liberal in the news media than conservatives. The claim of liberal bias isn't that there just happens to be a natural bias in both reporting and the stories chosen because of the ideology and beliefs of the reporters. No. The claim is that the liberals in the media are making a purposeful attempt to undermine conservatives. It's not a natural tendency for a big government democrat to pick stories about the poor and their plight, but instead it's a liberal conspiracy in the media to make conservativism look bad. dodgingcars

PuckSR. I guess since you have not seen the liberal bias, it does not exist??? This is more of a reflection on your seriousness as a poster. 83% of reporters at the big 3 networks admit to being democrats. 66% of them say they are more liberal than the democrat party as a whole. This is well known and admitted. You really need to do more research son. Dan Dan

Nice counter PaV. I point out your ad hominem and you deflect with an Two Wrongs Make a Right. From one fallacy to another, but it took you over an hour. You're slipping. JeffK

Well it is important The odds that Cheney would be VP, coupled with the odds that he would be born, coupled with the odds that his ancestral line survived from ancient times, coupled with the odds that current 24 hour news would have been successful, coupled with the random nature of a mistake, coupled with very rare timing.....the odds are above the threshold It must be intentional..either by one of the people working the video feed, or by the intelligent agent....rare occurrences are impossible above a certain threshold. puckSR

This X was clearly not on purpose and it bugs me that Dembski put this on his blog. I'm convinced that ID is on the right track in so many areas, but these little fumbles aren't helping. theonomo

I'm just wondering what this graphic was for. It looks like a graphic, tho it could be an imposed feed that was put up over the regular video itself. It says something about 'transition begins after 5 frames of black,' but I don't know what that means. Why they would have that keyed in to begin with is odd. It doesn't look like video bleeding thru, but a still store of sorts that was keyed in over the video feed of Cheney. Who knows. Some in TV have commented and said it was totally an accident, others have said there's no way it's an accident. jboze3131

If it was on purpose, which I doubt, who cares? jmcd

As someone else pointed out. It's centered on the screen. Cheney is centered on the screen. Seems like an accident. But let's explore further. What possible motive could there be to do this purposely? Was it to shame the VP? I guess it could be, but how hurtful could an "X" really be? And the simple fact that this would not go unnoticed would kinda kill the "joke." Obviously someone working in the CNN control room could have planned this, but why? And why should we suspect it was true except for maybe some paranoid belief that the liberal-bias in the media would permit this. Again. Would you suspect this was purposeful if it happened to Clinton? Or would you excuse it as an accident? dodgingcars

Awwww....arent you cute PaV everything is a conspiracy...you really, really, really think people are smart...you give them too much credit. When are we going to hear about you being abducted by aliens, but that the government covers it up. Wait, that was a decade or two ago, now we are onto political and scientific fields of paranoia puckSR

puckSR: That's your quote after Giff's. I wish we had a preview function. PaV

Giff: after the quote, it' supposed to say "naive", just in case you couldn't figure it out. PaV

Giff: You're 25. That's young. And apparently (...and it looks like an accident to me.Unfortunately, i have yet to see a study that indicates a strong liberal bias in media over the long term. Drudge reported it on his website almost immediately. Have you heard anything about it anywhere else? If anyone will carry it, it will be Fox News. But what about ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, LA Times, NYTimes? So, if there was a study indicating a "strong liberal bias", what makes you think you'd see it? Who would report it? Why don't you read Bernard Goldberg's book, "Bias". Believe me, he wasn't invited on any of the major networks to talk about his book even though it was a best-seller. puckSR, open your eyes (and ears). BTW, i have been drinking alcohol for awhile..LOL How many months? JeffK: Were your rhetorical skills honed during your vast years of experience? No, I learned them over at Pandas Thumb! No ad hominems there! jesguessin: Hey. I never thought of that. ID as a kind of paranoia…. I wonder if you'll be able to say that after it's investigated. (Although, in all likelihood, it will all be washed over. Do we know where those forged Rathergate documents came from?) Hope you remember you said this? PaV

"You don’t understand how liberalism works–political correctness and hubris–and consequently you don’t see these same ideological behaviors at work in Darwinism. I bet you’re not 21." Hmmm..i guess i dont understand how liberalism works. Apparently there is a massive liberal bias in the media...ive heard that a lot. Unfortunately, i have yet to see a study that indicates a strong liberal bias in media over the long term. You could easily claim that a current bias exists, but only because conservatives are in powerful positions. You dont sell newspapers telling people how nice the president is, and how much you agree with him. BTW, i have been drinking alcohol for awhile..LOL :::Rathergate:::: Yeah...it happened...and then every news organization in the world came down on their heads with vengence. You act like FOX News reported the scandal....and then all of the "liberal" outlets ignored it. ::;How low will they go:::: Seriously...lets say that a tech did this on purpose...ouch...he really made an insult by accidentally placing an X over Dick Cheney. It isnt like he used a digital pen to draw devil horns....i have seen the blurbs below the speakers(liberal and conservative) that accidentally said much more heinous things that an X over Dick Cheney's face. puckSR

Hey PaV. That may be a record. 0-ad hominem in under 20 minutes. Were your rhetorical skills honed during your vast years of experience? JeffK

This isn't the first time CNN has done something like this: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000794.htm johnnyb

"CNN is a reputable news outlet….do you really think that anyone would sink to the level of doing this on purpose? First…if it is discovered that it was done on purpose…that person loses his/her job. Second, it probably gets them blackballed from media." How about CBS and raTHergate? We can analyze this in a conditional manner. Given that another news organization has already stooped low, what is the probability that an even more liberal organization will stoop even lower? :) anteater

Hey. I never thought of that. ID as a kind of paranoia.... jesguessin

I suspect that it was in fact an accident. The atheist liberals meant for it to go for a fraction of a second as a subliminal message. But by accident, it stayed up for longer and was thus noticed. The atheists can't even do their dirty tricks right. wheadgib

Well, I'm 25, and not so liberal, and I like ID, and it looks like an accident to me. Giff

I see both elements of design and accident here. puckSR, what you've just said are inferences to design: the X is centered in the middle of the screen ... that makes sense to the programmer Cheney is centered in the middle of the screen ... that makes sense to the cameramen Your saying "that makes sense" is essentially a design argument. These don't happen by accident. The fact that these got superimposed could be explained by an accident: for that to happen only pressing a wrong button would do. Live video is complicated, and mistakes are made sometimes. Of course, the possibility that it is some prankster's doing cannot be ruled out, but the information we have so far is too little to make that inference. As for your claim that "CNN is a reputable news outlet," just remember that even their head had admitted that they were in bed with Saddam Hussein. I'm certain Dr. Dembski put this post up as a funny. This particular accident is not one that is highly improbable. On the other hand, as I read your writing, I am inferring that you are an intelligent agent who can compose reasonably well in English except for a few misspellings. And I don't think misspellings (suboptimality) disqualify you from being intelligent. formlessandvoid

"CNN is a reputable news outlet…." cBS' 60 Minutes was reputable before Rathergate where 60 Minutes tried to influence a federal presidential election in the twelfth in 2004 by disseminating a poorly forged document linking George W. Bush to a crime during his National Guard service. So much for reputable... "do you really think that anyone would sink to the level of doing this on purpose?" In a heartbeat. "if it is discovered that it was done on purpose…that person loses his/her job" The person would lose their job if it was due to negligence too. The question is whether it's reasonably possible for the person to get caught, whether the person cared if they were fired (what if it was someone who had already found another job and was going to quit anyway?), and whether CNN would even publically admit an employee did it. Could a computer glitch do it? Sure. But it's a little odd that this particular glitch has never been known to happen before and isn't repeatable. If I was to bet on it I'd bet it was intentional. DaveScot

puckSR: "CNN is a reputable news outlet….do you really think that anyone would sink to the level of doing this on purpose? First…if it is discovered that it was done on purpose…that person loses his/her job. Second, it probably gets them blackballed from media." Your comments make you seem young and naive: naive that someone working at CNN wouldn't do this, and more naive, that they would get fired. You don't understand how liberalism works--political correctness and hubris--and consequently you don't see these same ideological behaviors at work in Darwinism. I bet you're not 21. PaV

It appears to be perfectly centered in the frame as one would expect for a semaphore. If it was deliberate it pales in comparison to the infamous bureaucRATS ad of 2000 and DEMONstrates just how inept the democRATS are. :-) http://www.netspace.org/users/seiden/rats.htm DaveScot

Hmmm....lets look at something the X is centered in the middle of the screen...that makes sense to the programmer Cheney is centered in the middle of the screen...that makes sense to the cameraman CNN is a reputable news outlet....do you really think that anyone would sink to the level of doing this on purpose? First...if it is discovered that it was done on purpose...that person loses his/her job. Second, it probably gets them blackballed from media. So do i think it is an accident? Yes But hey...as Dembski said himself, highly improbable accidents dont happen...they are all purposefull...a la...the Designer puckSR

If it was done on purpose. Do you think it was a corporate decision? If it had occured over Clinton's face, would be so certain it wasn't an accident? dodgingcars