17 June 2008 | thraxus314
Sensationalist Nancy Grace versus Intelligent Robin Meade
I have been watching CNN for years. I watched it before I even understood why or what the news meant. I have seen a trend, which I find, appreciative. Integrating humor, personalities and comments is a plus. Those comments have led me to respect Robin Meade, not as a beautiful face reporting, which she is, but someone with thought and knowledge.
When I come home from work, there's Glen Beck. At first, I thought he maintained certain perspectives that might not agree with my own. He did, however, intrigue me. The more I watched, I realized he is very pragmatic. I have come to respect his pragmatism.
Then there's Nancy Grace. Suddenly everything is sensationalized. All news is based upon a perspective. I understand that. Her language and videos and expressions accentuate certain facts over others. Her 'proof' of certain consistencies and inconsistencies...I find, less than appealing. I never would have watched her except that for some reason Robin Meade is supposed to promote her. I am curious about all things and will give most things a singular chance. I will not give her another chance. Does it matter, probably not. She's the t.v. inquirer so to speak and that seems to appeal to the majority.
I am simply curious as to why CNN feels a need to become the inquirer for x hours of the day? Is CNN greedy or losing money? Is this an experiment? All information contains a perspective. I trusted CNN's to be vetted. From the time Nancy Grace is on, I no longer know if I can trust CNN's information to be vetted. Will Nancy Grace spill into Robin Meade? May I still trust Robin Meade's information to be vetted?