• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tired Chyron

Gateman_Wen said:
"breaking news" has a real meaning. It's a thing.
Click to expand...
It does when it's actually breaking news. When Prince Phillip died CBS News* broke into normal programing with a "Breaking News Bulletin". That was actual breaking news.

How many weeks into the Russian invasion are we now, and CNN is still running a Breaking News chyron on it?

*An actual real news organization, with their own reporters in Europe.
 
What in the sam hell is a Chyron?
 
When Ted Turner invented CNN "Breaking News" meant breaking news. Now it means some kind of liberal drivel clickbait.
 
Mr Person said:
Bombshell?

What about "blasted", "hit back at", "eviscerated", etc., all those fluff words to make a snide tweet sound important.
Click to expand...
Oh God yes, blasted, scorched, burned to the ground and my top pick "The First EVER!!!" as well as "all you need to see today" and "do this instead"
 
CNN's most infamous chyron will forever be "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting"
 
I'm reminded of one time long ago when I tuned into the FOX News Sunday morning talk show hosted by Chris Wallace. It was during the campaign between George Bush and John Kerry. Wallace introduced the round table discussion like this:

"If you're a regular viewer of this show, you know our panel seldom agrees on anything and today is no exception. Today they discuss a potential John Kerry presidency."

The first panelist said "John Kerry would make a terrible president and here's why . . ." and then went on to enumerate reasons they thought Kerry would be a terrible president.

The second panelist responds by saying "I completely disagree. John Kerry would be a terrible president, but not for the reasons you stated but because . . ." and he laid out other reasons he thought were important in the "terrible Kerry presidency."

The third panelist starts off "You're both completely wrong. Kerry would be a terrible president because . . ." and lays out even more reasons Kerry would be "a terrible president."

It was an invigorating and energizing debate with all sides of a potential terrible Kerry presidency being aired. It made it easy to decide why you were going to vote against Kerry for president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom