CNN, 12/10/06: "Former Chilean dictator Pinochet dies at 91." In a search of dozens of articles on CNN.com, I could find no CNN mention of Fidel Castro as a dictator--the term the network applies to both Castro's predecessor and Augusto Pinochet. Instead, CNN calls Castro "president" and "leader."

Not sure how hard you looked. The search term "Castro dictator" gets 80 hits on CNN.com alone.

Pinochet died before we got the noose around his neck. Do not trust that it will be the same for you and your fellow fascists in the U.S.

Not sure how hard you looked Matthew. It does have 80 hits, but a half of those articles are just about Castro and half of them are about dictators. Nice try though. And every time you look at those articles about Castro, CNN does refer to him as "president."

Matthew: CNN.com lists 80 or so articles with the words "Castro" and "dictator." But, in the articles I looked at, the term dictator either referred to someone other than Castro--usually his predecessor Batista--or referenced a Castro critic calling Castro a dictator. CNN.com generally calls Castro "president" and "leader." It's possible they call him a dictator somewhere, but I did not find such an article. If you can find an example of them doing so, please post a link.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/11/12/castro.health.ap/

That said some leftish media outlets are too friendly to Castro.

There's not one bit of difference between him and Pinochet in terms of human rights, but they like Castro's economics better.

Although its sad to say, Chile is now the rihest country in Latin America (per capita) in large part due to Pinochet's reforms.

Of course the centre-left coalition governing it now is much preferable.

That's an AP story, not a CNN story.

CNN makes me sick! They are ridiculous about their articles in reference to former and current dictators. To the point of being absurd and disturbing. I mean, come on. If you search for Nicolae Ceauşescu he is referred to as a "baggage handler" and Pol Pot is described as a "driving instructor". This is both insulting and alarming.

Clinton News Network....Still has that old taste of Turner.

It's simple: both are dictators, but Castro is a Marxist and Pinochet was a "capitalist". Therefore, Castro is legitimate while Pinochet is evil.

Why hasn't Chile's meteoric economic rise proven the Austrians right once and for all?

Almost everything on news websites is AP.

ITs all edited differnetly though.

Actually, HeHe, most of CNN.com's content comes from CNN.com. It's not like it's a small-town newspaper. The article you linked to, as another reader pointed out, is an AP story. I'm still waiting for an example of CNN.com calling Castro a "dictator." Perhaps there is such an article, but the fact that several motivated people here at FlynnFiles failed to find it makes my point, i.e., finding examples of CNN.com calling Castro "president" or "leader" are easy; finding an example of CNN.com calling him "dictator" eludes us. They call Batista a dictator. They call Pinochet a dictator. Why not Castro?

Wow this is really splitting hairs here.

I'm sure there's an eample of CNN calling Castro a dictator.

CNN isn't partically friendly to the regime anyways, compared to the European media.

And the embargo is BS no matter what.

It's really not splitting hairs. I looked at dozens and dozens of CNN.com articles and none of them call Castro what he is--a dictator--even though they use the term to describe Pinochet and Batista and others. If you're so sure that CNN.com calls him a dictator, find a link to such an article and post it here. After looking at so many articles and not finding such an example, I'm starting to wonder if it might be CNN.com's policy to not call Castro a dictator. Perhaps CNN.com does cal Castro a dictator somewhere, but the fact that after a whole day of looking no reader of this site can find such an example tells us something about CNN.com.

Not only on the website, but on-air as well:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/08/02/castro.sister/index.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/01/ltm.03.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/americas/08/13/birthday.castro/index.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/30/sitroom.03.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/02/hcsg.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0612/02/cnr.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/23/pzn.01.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0203/22/se.03.html

I think this has more to do with the fact that in-house search engines suck.

IF you so a site search on google you'll find it.

Wow you are dense, HeHe. The first CNN article you link to does not call him a dictator. They quote his sister, who aparently has more cajones than they do. The second refers to Batista as a dictator, him as president, and mentions how "Western governments" regard him as a dictator.

The more "proof" we get from you that Flynn is wrong, the more Flynn is proven right.

Are you fing serious?

Its not a quote, its in the headline.

She also calls him a dictator.

And the rest are on-air transcripts of CNN anchors calling him a dictator.

I don't think they have one policy for non-ap website articles and another for on-air anchors.

Christ you people are scary.

Wow, are you unhinged. You really hate anybody who dares take an angle you don't share.

Your angle is that it is insignificant that there is no CNN article in which Castro is called a dictator. Now, I think the headline is significant, but it becomes the exception that proves the rule, both because it is not technically in the article (so it is a apparent exception that proves the rule to be technically correct), and because we found THIS and only THIS after searching several scores of articles. In contrast, a second on google turns up scores of article in which CNN calls Pinochet a dictator. I think this is significant and shows a bias, of CNN journalists. Wow. I know. I'm scary.

And, in point of fact, even the subheadline is about how the sister sees things. Moreover, the sister says nothing good about Castro in the article, so the sub-headline "Younger sister sees good and bad sides of ailing dictator" is false in a way favorable to Castro. And after all this, you still want to say there is no bias here?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/01/us.cuba/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/06/poster.boy.html

Hehe,

Seriously go away, you are embarrassing yourself. You are a total waste of cyberspace.

The first link shows CNN never calling Castro a dictator, the closes they get is calling him a "strongman" and saying that he came to power by overthrowing "another dictator" which MAY possibly imply that Castro is one, but it doesn't state it. They even put "tyrant" in scare quotes when referring to Bush calling Castro one. So mixed signals at best, but overall it is an article friendly in its portrayal of him.

The second article is a TIME magazine article. Sigh.

You know what suck it you god-lover.

THe first artcle says that Castro overthrew Batista "another dictator."

Clearly that is refering to Castro as a dictator. Just because it doesn't hold your and say "CNN believes that Castro is a dictator." doesn't mean the converse is true.

The second article is an orignal article produed for CNN.com by Time, both orginizations having the same corporate parent.

Google shows over 200 instances of CNN calling Castro a dictator archived at CNN.com. AP articles, original articles, on-air transcripts you name the forum- CNN has called Castro a dictator on it.

Now, you have been presented with clear evidence that you are wrong.

Rather than try to take each dammning example and come up with some BS reason why it "doesn't count" , its time for you to BALLS UP BOY and admit you were wrong.

I guess I can't expect that kind of candor with religious people like you.

Present a religious person with clear evidence that something is so, they'll say "that doesn't conform to my beliefs, so it can't be true"

Well screw your beliefs!

There is no conspiracy.

There is no policy at CNN that bars Castro from being called a dictator.

Get over it, and while you're at it get over youself a**wipe.

Balls up Bruce!!

Be a man and admit when you're wrong.

Wow. I think we should use HeHE as a case study in ideological irrationality and hatred. Whenever people disagree with him, and the more attenuated his argument gets, the more he spews irrelevant hatred-filled epithets.

Look, Flynn pointed something out. And after great research the point has been established. No where in the text of a CNN-written news article is Fidel Castro called a dictator.

Now, there are cases that come really close to breaking this rule, but it still stands. And the closer we get to breaking it, the funnier it becomes, I think, that the rule has not actually been broken. No one said "conspiracy." But I think there is clearly a pattern of behavior that is non-random and probably just caused by bias. Why can't you admit this?

Hehe you wasted my time, I actually thought you might have had something. I checked the source articles you listed. Nothing, not my opinion, you have nothing. I am not religious hehe, (why that matters?) no dog in this fight, nothing hehe nothing.

The evidence is right in front of your eyes, yet you prefer to stay with your preexisting "beliefs"

Yup. You're religious all right.

God lover.

Hehe if you keep saying the sky is red it doesn't make it so. Rest well.

I guess you're right.

I'll ust wait for god to tell me what sky the color is.

That is how you god-lovers operate isn't it?

"I'll ust wait for god to tell me what sky the color is."

Addled brain.

Seriously disturbed/intellectually challenged. Reading an average Heha post raises about a dozen points but then you say “Why waste anymore time on this guy”. There is something seriously wrong with you, my friend!

Jon:
Aren’t you grateful Heha corrected you on your religious beliefs?

Bruce, regarding your previous post:
The sad thing is this guy is not embarrassed conducting himself this way. He obviously thinks everyone else is unhinged.

Let me save you some time Heha:
Your next response will start with “ARE YOU FING SIRIUS? Or “OMG, YOU MUST BE KIDING!” and end with “YOU PEEPLE ARE SCARY!!!!! KULT! KULT!

I'm bad at typos.

You're bad at life.

And that really sucks, cuz there's no heaven god-lover.

"I'm bad at typos."

Proved.

"You're bad at life."

Can't prove this.

"And that really sucks, cuz there's no heaven god-lover."

Prove it.

the burden's not on me to prove anything tumbleweed.

If there's a heaven, you prove it.

Oh wait, your combination of supidity and god-loving seems to make you a Mike Seaver evangelical.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of90cKxSeuw

Can you do better?

"...there's no heaven..."

Here's how burden of proof goes: You make the claim, you verify it. Period.

What's up with calling eveyone "godlover"?

-Agnostic

“I'm bad at typos."
Most of us make typos. No, you’re bad at communicating. As a person claiming to have a degree in English (?!) I would think you would know how to communicate properly.

"You're bad at life."
Really? Have we met before?

“the burden's not on me to prove anything tumbleweed."
Wrong again, buckshot. The person making the assertion has the responsibility of providing proof to back up said assertion. I would think a person claiming to have a scientific background would realize that, wouldn’t you? Strawman fallacies and ad hominum attacks don’t count as proof.

Is “God-Lover” (sic) the insult of the week or something?

Interesting that you are calling two people who claim to be agnostic god lovers.

For shame Heha! Maybe a sports blog is more your speed.

Yeha,
It looks like we may have made a couple similar responses. Purely unintentional, I assure you.

AM

You not liking what I have to communicate doesn't make me a bad communicator.

I have scores of A+ term papers to prove otherwise.

Wow, I would love to see your old term papers. A+'s, really? Do you do lots of this: "Godlovers are neanderthal losers who are ruining the country with all their fetusloving globe warming crap!" Oh, I'm sorry, that was way too coherent. It is really hard to mimick your writing style, you know. And at that, or at something even less intelligible, your sociology prof goes: "A+++++++," "Christmas Story"-style.

Great evidence for the decline and bias of academia: HeHe's 4.0 average...

haaaaaaaa!

“You not liking what I have to communicate doesn't make me a bad communicator.
I have scores of A+ term papers to prove otherwise.”

Just like last time: I’m not buying it! You being a bad communicator makes you a bad communicator. If you could convey your thoughts properly you would, wouldn't you? And don’t give me this crap of you just imitating the retards on this site. You are the only one on this blog who writes in this fragmented, rambling, tangential manner. But then again I can think of no better medium for you to spew forth your holier than thou, nonsensical hatespeech.

Assuming you do have a degree in English and loads of A+ papers (I doubt either), I would consider that less praise of your intelligence and education than scathing indictment of the educational system of this country.

In the spirit of good will toward man/troll here is a link you may find useful:
www.rif.org
I suggest you use it.

Excuse me, I've already graduated from:

http://secure.hop.com/

Anad itt workd for mee!