CNN chooses flair and fluff over fact

Today by pure chance I fell upon Fareed Zakaria's GPS show, an interview with Shahrukh Khan, also known as King Khan, India's top-grossing actor.

He was asked about his film "My Name is Khan" about a Muslim man married to a Hindu woman living in post-9/11 America.

Interesting. I am intrigued enough to watch the film. Khan was rather eloquent.

But I was quickly reminded why I cannot stand the smug, biased coverage that is CNN.

Tours of the Tyrant, was the network's promotion of a special segment about pictures released of Kim Jong-il.

Zakaria called the North Korean leader a rapacious tyrant.
Then he beamed a smile to the viewers.

Why?

What does Zakaria's description benefit the viewer? There were no facts offered, no story - the whole thing was designed to belittle and ridicule a leader that has become fair target for US and most Western media.

But I am grateful that I had the opportunity to see this. As usual CNN does not disappoint in choosing flair and fluff over fact.

How the Dalai Lama got into Tiger Woods' pants

I admit, I am not a fan of the Dalai Lama. Personally, while I stand by the plight of the people of Tibet, I don't know what this man has done to deserve so much fanfare.

The Chinese, who periodically moan and groan whenever a Western official meets with the Buddhist leader, are as much to blame for his cult of personality.

Nevertheless, I wouldn't necessarily say that the Dalai Lama is an evil man, even though he seemed to be out of touch with reality when he said:

"Of course, I have great respect for, in fact, I love President Bush, because he is very frank, very straightforward. His intentions are good, but some of his policy in spite of his sincere motivation and right goal, and some of his method becomes unrealistic because of lack of understanding about reality."

How a man allegedly of peace, who campaigns on behalf of his occupied people, can say he has respect for Bush, a man who has destroyed the peace ... well it's beyond me. Is he being diplomatic, and if so, are we to understand that diplomacy comes before the guiding tenets of Buddhism?

I will just call the Dalai Lama stupid.

Moving along, however, how related is the Dalai Lama visit to the US with Tiger (has) Wood? Sure, Tiger has shed light on his Buddhism but that's like asking the Pope what he thinks of Raul Julia.

On February 20, the Dalai Lama was in Beverly Hills to support a charity organization which advocates better care for orphans around the world. Given the latest disaster in Haiti, such support is well-timed.

But some journalist decided to ask the Dalai Lama what he thought of Woods' sexcapades. Say what? Why would the Dalai Lama care; furthermore, why not ask the Dalai Lama about Haiti or orphans around the world?

No, Woods' dick and where he put it and how often was the most pressing issue. AP reported it, FOX News ran it et voila, you have yet another brilliant example of journocrapitalism.

Sigh.