Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

CNN Xes Cheney — Design or Accident?

William Dembski
November 22, 2005
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

CNN Xes Cheney

Let me humbly suggest that CNN puchase a copy of my book The Design Inference (Cambridge University Press, 1998) to determine whether its explanation for the “X” that flashed over the VPs face during his speech holds up. In particular, what are the odds that this program glitch just happened to kick in right as the VP spoke, no sooner or later, with the “X” marking his face having the appropriate size and thickness and occupying just the right position? See http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5cnc.htm.

Comments
PuckSR You were disinvited from participation in this blog. Take the hint and take a hike.DaveScot
December 1, 2005
December
12
Dec
1
01
2005
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT
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 mentalityPuckSR
November 29, 2005
November
11
Nov
29
29
2005
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT
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
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
Perhaps you meant to link to www.evolutionnews.org ?Gumpngreen
November 28, 2005
November
11
Nov
28
28
2005
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.com/pmob1
November 27, 2005
November
11
Nov
27
27
2005
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
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
November 26, 2005
November
11
Nov
26
26
2005
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
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 21:12pmob1
November 26, 2005
November
11
Nov
26
26
2005
05:54 PM
5
05
54
PM
PDT
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 childishpuckSR
November 26, 2005
November
11
Nov
26
26
2005
10:03 AM
10
10
03
AM
PDT
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
November 26, 2005
November
11
Nov
26
26
2005
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT
To the darwinist, morality is nothing more than an evolving social construct.anteater
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
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
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
06:18 PM
6
06
18
PM
PDT
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
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
03:05 PM
3
03
05
PM
PDT
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 wordpuckSR
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
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
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
"did you just use the word liberal as an insult?" Is there any other way?DaveScot
November 25, 2005
November
11
Nov
25
25
2005
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
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
November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
06:00 PM
6
06
00
PM
PDT
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
November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT
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
November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
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 IDpuckSR
November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
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
November 24, 2005
November
11
Nov
24
24
2005
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
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
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT
#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
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT
"CNN is a reputable news outlet" Now, about the price of that bridge in Brooklyn you about to buy from me...DonaldM
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
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
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=57102anteater
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
UCS tries to combine science with politics on many different issues. Take a gander at their site (google UCS)anteater
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
"Ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists?" In this capacity they are not doing *any* science. What's your point?cambion
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
#47, it seems there was both a black X and a white X; anyways, CNN is investigating this, according to drudge.anteater
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT
Ever heard of the Union of Concerned Scientists?anteater
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
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
November 23, 2005
November
11
Nov
23
23
2005
12:18 PM
12
12
18
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply