CNN commits iChat AV experiment

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Aug 9, 2005.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors 6502a

    LaMerVipere

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #2
    Saw that yesterday. Pretty cool.

    But Wolf Blitzer & "The Situation Room" both suck.
     
  3. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, CA
    #3
    and i just brought an isight home today, now i can ask the hard hitting questions.
     
  4. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2005
    Location:
    Hobart, Australia
  5. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #5
    I think CNN needs to learn to focus their camera if they want to take full advantage of H.264!
     
  6. iDM
    macrumors 6502a

    iDM

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Location:
    The Commonwealth of PA/The First State-DE
    #6
    Do iSights work on PC's or does this mean they are running Macs?
     
  7. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #7
    They're using Macs.

    (There might be some way to use iSight on PC, but not the iChat AV software.)
     
  8. macrumors 68020

    rockthecasbah

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Location:
    Moorestown, NJ
    #8
    GASP. Wolf is 'eh' but i rather fancy The Situation room. ;)
     
  9. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    #9
    I agree that Wolf is so so, but to me "The Situation Room" sounds like a title for a bad late 80's cable movie.
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    LaMerVipere

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago
    #10
    'The Situation Room' is just trying too hard to be "hip" and "edgy", it's painful to watch.
     
  11. macrumors 603

    Stella

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2003
    Location:
    Canada
    #11
    Yes iSights work on XP ( video only, no microphone ). The quality under MSN messenger is very good.

    You don't need any drivers and XP will whine that it can find any drivers when you plug the iSight in, but ignore that and continue.

    I've used iSight mostly under XP, unfortunately, since there aren't many PC <--> Mac webcam software. I've tried mercury but its 1 frame a second doesn't really cut it.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #12
    Cool! It looks like Apple keeps taking more steps up to being involved in the professional world. (However I don't like CNN's news reporting. Perhaps it should be called false reporting.) ;)
     
  13. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Location:
    Ontario, CA
    #13
    Do you like it more or less than Fox News reporting ? :rolleyes:
     
  14. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #14
    I haven't watched CNN in years. Just have basic cable. Don't watch Fox either, but it would be my preference.

    CNN is international so this is a good thing for Apple. They are getting some free publicity.
     
  15. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #15
    Well, considering that Fox News is very reliable with its reporting, although I rarely watch TV, if I get around to it I commonly watch Fox News and rarely (almost never) watch CNN. If I want a good laugh CNN news reporting is a joke. :D
     
  16. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #16
    Don't want to turn this into a political thread, but if you're getting your news from FOX or CNN, you're only getting half the story. Everyone knows that CNN sucks, but if you think FOX isn't as bad (especially the political analysts, and we all know how accurate analysts are) do a Google search on them. You'd be surprised at just how funny that Fair and Balanced thing is.

    If you want accuracy, look to BBC.
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #17
    Just so you know, I don't think BBC is by any means unbiased. Just because something is so called an in-between doesn't mean that it is better (especially when it is far left and other sources are extremely left). It is better to be hot or cold than it is to be lukewarm which meaning BBC is more tainted than other sources because once in a great while it will support some sort of conservative action (hmm... maybe it doesn't support any conservative actions come to think of it). I think Fox News is far more accurate compared to BBC News. Unfortunately almost every source of media has a liberal slant to it (and yes this means BBC News too). I like factual straight forward sources of media.

    Where do you find a conservative and consistent source of media with standards that don't change every 5 minutes (give or take a few)? The only names that come to mind are, (1st and foremost) Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN) and (2nd but not too far behind) Fox News. This is where I go for consistent, stable and superior standards. I recommend it to everyone because even if they don't want it, they certainly need it. :)
     
  18. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #18
    My hope is that other news organizations will give iChat AV a try. It would seem to be logical choice for remote interviews.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #19
    That's just it, I don't look for conservative or liberal news. I just want the facts. You will find that FOX has just as much slanted opinion, misrepresentations, and outright lies as any recent Michael Moore films. Consistency does not equal truth, as this is not a consistent world. There are plenty of conservative commentators out there, if that's your thing, that are better than most you'd find on FOX. I might recommend Joe Scarborough on MSNBC. Though as opinionated as Al Franken, I find him just as reliable and truthful, even if I disagree on occasion. If you are getting all of your news from FOX or TBN, you are not getting the whole story.

    Though I will admit not all of FOX is horrible, the bad tends to outweigh the good.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    StarbucksSam

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #20
    Somebody ought to tell MacWorld that you don't COMMIT experiments, you CONDUCT them.
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #21
    I don't agree on everything I hear from my media sources either. I do occasionally read and watch other sources of media but I know from experience that the two networks that I usually watch are two of some of most reliable networks to get my media from. Fox News and TBN focus on stating the facts. Other networks focus on telling me what they think the truth should be to support their corrupt and destructive views. I don't listen to occasional liars on Fox News or TBN (however it is very rare for if anyone has even a hint of deception in their bones on TBN).

    As a side note, I don't know of any conservatives in the MacRumors forum.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Look around. They are there. Desertrat for one. Nothing wrong with being a conservative nor religious. But a news organization that presents itself as fair, yet is uabashedly biased, raises my ire. Worse, at times they present outright lies as fact. I suggest you do a Google search on them to see the truth. You will be as suprised as I was to find out just how "accurate" they actually are most of the time (hint, they aren't).

    I'm probably not going to convince you no matter what I say... but just because they share some of your views, it doesn't make them truthful.
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #23
    I do this often just to see how my favorite sources of media are viewed by secular liberals. It always strengthens my beliefs and standards whenever I do so because nothing other sources say have correct justifications for why they are putting down my sources. People like to talk down and fight against the best sources and people. Here is an example:

    People talk down Jesus. They swear by saying "Jesus Christ" and "God dammit." My take on this scenario would be to recommending to these people that they should read their Bible. I would also like to let them know that God doesn't hate them, he loves them and they should love him too. God isn't going to harm them so why do they blame him? They should blame themselves for not doing what is right and not following God. God knows what is best for people because he made them and everything else around them that will effect them. Jesus (even during the time when he physically lived on the Earth as a man) is opposed against often. He was even killed as a man and died the worst death possible to overcome our sin for us to live in eternity with him and to become clean even though we have been impure. Just because people hate or fight against something or put it down or try to convince you it is bad doesn't mean that it is something bad or something wrongful at all. People talk down George W. Bush too. Why? For similar reasons that they put down Jesus. Obviously Jesus was perfect and George W. Bush isn't, but at least George W. Bush tries to be as perfect as possible. There's nothing wrong with that at all but people seem to make a problem with it anyway. Although I don't agree with everything George W. Bush does I am very confident that he is doing the very best he can do. :) And Jesus has always been perfect and he always will be. :)
     
  24. macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #24
    Wow.... I don't even know how to argue with that.

    Lest this be sent to the Poli Forum, I won't begin to tell you my perfectly viable and fact based reasons for disliking either of the last 2 presidents. But if you think people don't like FOX because of a liberal bias, I'm not sure what else to say to that. They lie. All there is to it. Nothing to do with bias, or partisan politics. They are biased themselves, and have been proven to lie on a regular occasion. Believe what you want, but I urge you to take everything you hear from most of what's on FOX news with a grain of salt, even more so than a lot other news organizations. Once again, I would suggest people like Joe Scarborough, who is both conservative and fairly accurate.

    If you want to know why I am so against FOX, it because while I was looking for a news channel to watch, I spent some time watching them. I found them to be worse than biased, they were often outright lying. After doing some research (who cares where it came from, it was based on fact), I found out just how bad they were really were. Some stuff coming from people who worked there. It sickened me. There's proof out there. Call it bias, but facts are facts. Outfoxed has some good examples (though you will probably roll your eyes at times, just as I did). I have other links if you'd like them. Call them biased, but it's hard to ignore all the evidence to the contrary.

    And please don't even begin to compare Jesus to a crooked politician and a even more crooked network. Just because I don't believe in either of those, doesn't mean I don't believe in Him. I know that wasn't your intention, but the inference still bothers me.
     
  25. macrumors 65816

    GodBless

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #25
    Everything in the world is tainted to some extent but I like to focus on the least tainted sources possible. I agree Fox News isn't perfect but I haven't heard anything major that is against them that I should pay attention to. Some things I have heard against them were outright lies. I do like Joe Scarborough though. :) I should watch him more often. I especially like Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as far as political news reporters (and debaters) go. As for TBN news, Hal Lindsey is excellent and adds Biblical prophesy too.
     

Share This Page