Actually, I don't see the "wacko" aspect from the link, but maybe I'm missing something.

They just had the means and wherewithall to record their call and make it publicly available but if there is actual "wackiness" here, I'd say it's by that so-called "phone rep." answering the call for CNN, whether or not CNN can or will ever accept responsibility for that, either (in addition to the X event itself).

I regroup: CNN is responsible for the X event by default in that they published the X event. They can claim hacking or technical incompetence or whatever, but in the end, CNN is responsible and is to be held accountable. As is whoever they employ to answer their phones. By the mere fact that the wacko answering CNN's phones is paid by CNN to answer their phones, CNN is responsible for his statements.

The Theatre group is cunning but I don't find them to be wackos, just better prepared theatrical group than some.

I think it's important not to change the subject of focus here. Or did I miss something?

Is the Team Hollywood group responsible FOR the X-event? Is that what you (and other link) are suggesting? If so, I can't begin to understand what their defense might be, or could be.

It was the "wacko" adjective that threw me off here, in that it seems reasonable to apply that to CNN AND their phone representative, not the Team Hollywood group, UNLESS T.H. is responsible for hacking CNN. In which case, CNN is still responsible for the broadcast and they can slug it out with lawyers as to who owes who what afterward.

Oh, wait...the taped CNN-Answering-Guy is fictitious, is theatre, created by Team Hollywood, yes? In which case, they've created an interesting bit of work there.

On the other hand, I don't see a disclaimer (yet) or denial or confirmation of authenticity, other than CNN saying the people who answer their phones aren't representative of CNN's opinions. In which case, I'd say, "whatever." ~~Oh, I'm not responsible for what I write in my blog...could be someone else, you know.~~

"~~" indicates sarcasm.

Nice link Kevin, but your comments might be just a little bit too concise. The BBC's call-takers are an outside operation. They're not "real" BBC employees - and sometimes they don't do their job very well. Perhaps they're not paid well enough to do a good job. If this recording is genuine, the guy won't have his job for very much longer because any sentient being should realize it's not CNN policy to put black Xs over vice-presidents' faces.

-S...!!!...!!! You didn't see anything wacko?...???...!!!

Quote: "Millions from across the country telephoned CNN"

Please tell me you didn't actually believe that.

-S, read this.

Mommy, mommy just make the man stop lying. OK I will ask Harry Reid to shut up -- OK now?

cat: the only thing I "see" as "wacko" here, this specific place and time, is your ongoing wackoness.

I realize that Team Hollywood is a theatre group. I wrote "t.h.e.a.t.r.e...g.r.o.u.p" in my earlier comments. That means they are a group of THEATRICAL personalities selling their THEATRICAL wares. That's what "theatre" is and a "group" is...please see your dictionary of the absurdly necessary definitions.

They're a theatre group who recorded for theatrical purposes one of their group calling CNN. CNN EMPLOYS (that means, they hire and pay people) to answer their phones and contend with whoever among the public calls CNN.

That someone would call CNN from a theatrical group and pretend to be Mr. or Ms. Public Whomever is not the point, but that they used the pretense to TRY TO DISCUSS A REAL ISSUE with CNN.

But CNN even now says the person answering CNN'S TELEPHONE NUMBER is employed but not a representative (the real theatre of the absurd is CNN's avoidance of a relationship there, among the original, um, "accidentally...technical" x-ing issue itself that prompted Ms. Public Whomever along with millions of others nonrecorded (by them) persons to call CNN).

Note that although THEATRICAL GROUP, Ms. Public Whomever did attempt to discuss an actual incident.

My only question here as to the audio tape itself was whether or not the CNN telephone-answering-employed-but-not-responsible-for-CNN guy is a part of the theatrical group, or, is actually employed-but-not-responsible-for-CNN.

That is, whether or not, on the audio tape, Ms. Public Whomever (with the theatrical group) is calling and interacting with another member of the theatrical group, OR, if Ms. Public Whomever is actually calling CNN.

Even people in theatre can call "real" people and discuss "real" issues with them. It becomes absurd when they say they're someone else (usually of public notoriety -- which this Ms. Public Whomever did NOT do) and then attempt to discuss something relevant or pertinent to that theatrically portrayed by dishonest representation means as posing in the real.

There's no identity fraud or misrepresentation by the theatre group UNLESS they're both parties involved, UNLESS they are the guy answering the phone, is my point.

I haven't seen anywhere here that anyone is attempting to discuss other involvements by this theatre group, specifically, your link as to one of those. But if you want to discuss "raising the Titanic," go ahead, knock yourself out.

What I take that audio tape, so far, to represent, is that this theatre group called CNN. If they did not call CNN but had two members of their theatre group make an entirely theatrical, fictious interaction, then that's one thing. If they called CNN and the guy responding as he has and did was actually answering the phone number at CNN -- I don't care whether CNN will hone up to their responsibility there or not but they're paying people to answer their phones, they're employed to a degree even if it's a subcontractor, CNN is still paying someone for their time and labor to man and answer the phones for CNN and that makes CNN responsible -- if CNN (or their agent, representative/employee) answered the phone, then there's nothing fictitious about the call or about the interaction, other than the caller didn't reveal her true identity. But she didn't, in that case, either pretend to be someone who represents any personna otherwise that harms anyone else, and expressed almost certainly the very same things many millions of other callers concluded. And probably already have attempted to express to CNN (and what's been said to them?).

From what I've read, CNN admits that the x-issue occured but is trying to dismiss the import of it based upon it being "a technical...glitch" and such (bringing into defense even the notorious "switch" problem which was used by MCI to attempt to explain away that which was later proven by the Justice Department to be their means by which they defrauded consumers out of millions of dollars, and I was one of those and heard many times from apologetic MCI supervisors all about their "switching" problem and, oh, woe was them but, hey, pay your bill and accept our five cent adjustment).

What I am concluding is that the x-thing happened, that CNN is working concertedly to Public Relate the thing into nothingness and that they are responsible for what they publish. If that means they have incompetent, immature editors, technicians and producers who just couldn't manage to not allow the "switch" to "x" it's way onto the public broadcast, they're still responsible. They are responsible for their technical performance, along with their content. And that includes every jacker, cracker, nincompoop and derelict they employ.

I DON'T THINK IT'S AUTHENTIC, AND I EXPLAIN WHY.

TrackBack by All Things Beautiful The CNN Exclusive on Cheyne's X'

While I question the validity of the actual call, I found it freaking hillarious. We all know CNN is digging its own grave, but jesus christ this is nuts.

OK, enough. So what if the big black X was a glitch or deliberate. I tend to go with the simplest explanation: occam razor. Therefore it was a glitch.

To spend time debating whether a call made by actors was real, not real, you can tell be the clicks and pauses, is a waste of time.

The bottom line is that CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC, and let’s not forget NPR all air stories riddled with bias daily. It’s so easy to spot. Look at the decline in their viewers. I’m telling you, they are killing themselves. So let them. Point out the obvious ones and keep the pressure on them.

The story about the X, whether a glitch or not is or should be seen as more incompetence by CNN. Egg on the face is after all egg on the face no matter how it got there.

This story is no where near the story that the Fake CBS Killian memos was!

Maybe you might want to checkout "Team Hollywood" before you get too invested in this internet hoax. This is a setup to embarass conservative blogs.

"This is a setup to embarass conservative blogs."

Yeah it is, ha ha ha! I usually can't stand right wing blogs, but I'm eating your coverage of this "scandal" with a spoon.

I'm in the "could be a fake call" camp. While I wouldn't be shocked if it was real (I work with a call center, and I've heard some wacky stuff on the call recordings), I don't think there is enough evidence to take this recording as advertised right now.
Even coming this close to defending CNN makes me feel dirty... time to shower.

If this call is even remotely legit, then it's pretty disturbing. It's one thing to bash Cheneyand call it "freedom of speech", it's quite another to pretend you're an unbiased news outlet when you're NOT. That my friends, is lying.

How about the opinion of someone that hasn't got a clue what's going on re: the thread? Well, that's me, I haven't heard the 'call' and haven't watched the 'clip'. However, for those that think this is a setup to fool conservatives (or whatever exactly it is you're getting at), isn't the real disturbing aspect of the discussion that the discussion could be had at all on the level its happening on? That CNN is now regarded as so hopelessly biased and left-wing that there is a serious discussion going on about whether the "x-ing" was deliberate and whether they could then have staffers defending it? Simple example, if this happened on FoxNews, would the debate exist or would it be shrugged off immediately as a mistake? Similar example, if it instead happened with a Harry Reid speech on CNN, would the debate exist? Final example, if it happened with Harry Reid on FoxNews, would the debate exist? The real jokes' on cable news, I think, and they've all done it to themselves. The bloggers on both sides are pretty much just poking them with sticks now over everything they do to see if they can actually provide anything legitimate beyond live coverage and video clips that they still do much more reliably than alternate media.

Hmmmm.

So.....

How about them Yankees eh?

About the hoax aspects...

Yes, there are charges of hoax being raised, but if you read all of the post, including the updates, you'll see that I spoke to Preska Thomas about these charges, and she vigrorously denies them, and says she would be happy to have a verified copy of the tape analyzed. Further, her buisness partner, Kevin Finn, is a winner of the Ronald Reagan Gold Medal, which seems to indicate that his company, TeamHollywood, is not some fly by night performance art/hoax operation that, as the commenter puts it, "pop up out of nowhere."

At least I can talk to them. I still haven't been able to reach anybody at CNN for comment.

CNN confirmed to me the call was legit. They fired the rep.

Bill, having cleared up that fiasco, I thought I'd pose a few more burning questions to you.

Was that memo about firing their employee they faxed you typed on an old Selectric, did TeamHollywood ressurect Rosemary Wood's tape recorder to tape the call, and how aobut them Yankees, anyways!

Good job Bill.

Bill Quick: I wonder what's been said to the many other millions of callers to CNN, and, what CNN will have to say (probably won't have to say, rather) about the one "rep" they fired and why.

I'm just saying, there certainly have been a huge number of people calling them and I'm wondering if anyone else had the wherewithall to record their calls. Probably not. For a number of reasons, I realize some being of the legal kind, but, we can only speculate what's been said already by that now fired guy and by many others.

Thanks for verifying that, most significantly. TeamHollywood has it's theatrical excesses, yes, but the call isn't one of them.

Okay, the way CNN explained it could indeed be a technical glitch ... but a accidental glitch precisely at the moment Cheney appeared on camera ... what are the odds!!?? Pretty damn extreme I would have thought.

CNN is a propaganda network. They have always been.
They front as a news source. They are in fact a tool for dilution of America. What is funny is, no mattter how much "evidence" slips from thier clutches onto the floor for everyone to see, some still seem to willing to break thier hips spreading thier legs to make excuses for them.

An absolute riot.

Make that "The poor schlub ALLEGEDLY answering the phone." Since Team Hollywood may be perpetrating a hoax at CNN's expense.

cheyne and Caligula W bush have done thier last 2 speaches from the Heritage foundation. This is governmental support of private industry. Should we pay to keep the white house if it isn't used? Thier dispicable manipulation of the political scene starts from seeminglessly simple and minor stabs at Americans like this. Let the conservative think tanks put money in the treasury for advertising like this!

Benjamin Dover