Why does CNN keep deleting readers' comments about the administration's plans for education reform? |
Diane Ravitch had an interview with Randi Kaye about education and it has been an interview to remember, maybe not so much because of the interview itself, but the firestorm created when commentors responded on the site. The web director or someone at CNN kept deleting the comments criticizing Kaye's questions and general tone of the interview. The questions Kaye asked Ravitch sound as if they came from a StudentsFirst, ACLU or Department of Education press release.
From "Read These Comments Before CNN Deletes Them":
As readers of this blog know, CNN posted Randi Kaye's August 18 interview with me a week after it aired.
I heard there were about 35 comments, and they were suddenly deleted.
People started posting comments again, possibly 20 or so, and then they too were deleted.
People went back for a third round and posted the following comments.
A
reader (Teresa H from Oregon) copied the entire batch of them, on the
off chance that they might also disappear. (I copied and added the last
three.)
Isn't this ridiculous?
Why is the web editor at CNN deleting your comments?
Other readers said that none of the comments after Michelle Rhee's interview had been deleted.
You can read the readers' comments at the first link. As of 8.28.12, there are 62 responses...maybe CNN has thrown up its hands and is allowing this interview (or playbook) of pushing charters, the "failing school" narrative and merit pay to play out. Here is a reader's response summing up the interview and issue quite nicely:
After watching this video, I am dismayed that Ms. Kaye would not be willing to listen to both sides of the issue. She clearly had an agenda in this interview Ms. Ravitch, that public schools are bad and are failing the country. Ms. Ravitch was consistent in her argument about which test scores should be used to measure student achievement and the neutral/negative impact of merit pay. All Ms. Kaye was willing to rebut those statements with were individual examples out of a potentially limitless supply. Please CNN, present both sides at the same time. Give Ms. Ravitch the opportunity to debate Ms. Michele Rhee for more than a 5 minute segment. The truth about America's public schools is out there, if you only choose to look.
After watching this video, I am dismayed that Ms. Kaye would not be willing to listen to both sides of the issue. She clearly had an agenda in this interview Ms. Ravitch, that public schools are bad and are failing the country. Ms. Ravitch was consistent in her argument about which test scores should be used to measure student achievement and the neutral/negative impact of merit pay. All Ms. Kaye was willing to rebut those statements with were individual examples out of a potentially limitless supply. Please CNN, present both sides at the same time. Give Ms. Ravitch the opportunity to debate Ms. Michele Rhee for more than a 5 minute segment. The truth about America's public schools is out there, if you only choose to look.
More and more people are asking questions about the lobbyists, education reformers and investors who suddenly have an interest in becoming "globally competitive" and "turning around failing schools". "IT'S FOR THE KIDS!"...is the battle cry. But it really isn't. It's for the elites to make money while using taxpayer funds and their children.
FOX hasn't had meaningful discussion about education reform as owner Rupert Murdoch is heavily invested ($360 Million for a 90% stake) in Wireless Generation and the success of Arne Duncan's education reform means his investment was a wise one. If the clamor against education reform becomes too loud and too many questions are asked on how taxpayer money is being used to prop up privatization, he, Michelle Rhee, Bill Gates, David Coleman and other investors lose millions of dollars.
Here's an article from the WSJ (another Murdoch interest) reporting on Murdoch's Wireless Generation investment and his reasoning for doing so. Not one of the readers' comments agrees with Murdoch's contentions, but at least the WSJ didn't delete them.
Here's an article from the WSJ (another Murdoch interest) reporting on Murdoch's Wireless Generation investment and his reasoning for doing so. Not one of the readers' comments agrees with Murdoch's contentions, but at least the WSJ didn't delete them.
But CNN? What's in it for that network? Why did it delete comments multiple times that didn't agree with its preconceived narrative?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep it clean and constructive. We reserve the right to delete comments that are profane, off topic, or spam.