CNN whistleblower (1 Viewer)

[Lazybones]

I am seeing some articles about a CNN whistleblower. My sources are only one sided, so I am a little skeptical of the validity.
However, apparently project Veritas has a whistleblower who wore a hidden camera to work.
The accusation is that CNN has been running their news with a tad of bias. (No surprise here for some of us) We will see how this plays out.

 

[Lazybones]

I am following your point quite well. The problem is in your argument.

1. You shifted the goalposts. Wardorican never said that CNN.com is 100% free of bias. This is the exact quote:

"CNN.com is probably closer to how the network broadcasts are, as they tend to do more factual regular reporting."

2. You have stated in the past that bias = lies.

You are now inserting bias into a statement that did not mention bias, and your definition of bias is flawed. It is possible to be 100% factual in 100% of stories while still exhibiting bias in story selection.

I’m not trying to play semantics. I’m not even arguing wards point. I can fully see where he is coming from. My follow up post was just a thought I had as I listened to NPR. As I described, I appreciated wards post, because it gave me his honest perspective. I was doing the same.
So stop with the flawed argument stuff. If you want to take up a debate about the lack of bias at CNN.com, open the topic, do your research and challenge someone to a debate.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m not trying to play semantics. I’m not even arguing wards point. I can fully see where he is coming from. My follow up post was just a thought I had as I listened to NPR. As I described, I appreciated wards post, because it gave me his honest perspective. I was doing the same.
So stop with the flawed argument stuff. If you want to take up a debate about the lack of bias at CNN.com, open the topic, do your research and challenge someone to a debate.

Ok, it was your honest perspective and not an argument. That doesn't change the fact that your perspective is flawed and your question was loaded.

You've commented on sources you consider biased, including NPR. What sources do you consider unbiased, which is your admitted threshold for trustworthiness?

 

[Lazybones]

Ok, it was your honest perspective and not an argument. That doesn't change the fact that your perspective is flawed and your question was loaded.

You've commented on sources you consider biased, including NPR. What sources do you consider unbiased, which is your admitted threshold for trustworthiness?

Good thing for me, you are not the arbitrator of my language.
I have not found an unbiased source particularly. I’m fully aware of slants. I take the facts and filter the rest. You?

 

[Dragon]

I’m not sure if you are referring to something I said, but I’m missing the point.

Just read and reply to what I wrote instead of deflecting as always

 

[Ayo]

He would retell from an educators mind whose background is social injustice (ayo, all respect to you, I hope my wording is correct)

I would be fine, even proud, with that description.

 

[Lazybones]

Just read and reply to what I wrote instead of deflecting as always

I read what you wrote, I honestly don’t know what you are referring to with your comment.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Good thing for me, you are not the arbitrator of my language.

I am not trying to be an arbiter of anything. I am taking the things you've said and applying them to our conversations. You said:

Bias = lies. Unbiased = truth.
Definition of Bias


2.
a. A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment.
b. An unfair act or policy stemming from prejudice.

3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.

Exhibiting bias means lying.

Then you said:

So then I get back to CNN. If the management are liberals, the commentators are liberal, the headlines are clickbait with leftist slants, How is it possible to have an unbiased .com? Management selects what and how reporting is done, how is it possible For them to remove their biases only on .com. As a critical thinker, I just don’t buy what is being sold.

By your own words, stories on CNN.com are lies. Is this what you believe?

I have not found an unbiased source particularly. I’m fully aware of slants. I take the facts and filter the rest. You?

I have found a few highly factual sources I trust for my news. AP News and Reuters are very good. NPR and The Hill are also great news sources. Their lean (L and R respectively) comes from the overall slant of editorials.

 

[Lazybones]

I am not trying to be an arbiter of anything. I am taking the things you've said and applying them to our conversations. You said:



Exhibiting bias means lying.

Then you said:



By your own words, stories on CNN.com are lies. Is this what you believe?



I have found a few highly factual sources I trust for my news. AP News and Reuters are very good. NPR and The Hill are also great news sources. Their lean (L and R respectively) comes from the overall slant of editorials.

you are applying my words to extreme measures. And maybe I shouldn’t have been hyperbolic with bias = lies. I should have said biases=slanted truths

 

[wardorican]

thanks for the thoughtful response. As I was listening to NPR this am to see if they were as unbiased as many tout. Not surprising they were well slanted left.

I got to thinking of your response above. You broke CNN into 3 parts, saying .com was closest to the networks reports Facts. For some the networks and CNN.com are heavily slanted left. You are correct the right doesn’t have an equivalent. Fox is much like MSNBC, but That is it. Why are non of the networks slightly right?

So then I get back to CNN. If the management are liberals, the commentators are liberal, the headlines are clickbait with leftist slants, How is it possible to have an unbiased .com? Management selects what and how reporting is done, how is it possible For them to remove their biases only on .com. As a critical thinker, I just don’t buy what is being sold.

Two quick points.

Cuddlemonkey covered it with CNN, but I said CNN.com is closer to the network's, not the same. Still left slant, mostly by editorial choice and omission, but highly factual. I always keep my brain engaged as best as possible when reading.

NPR. Again, their podcast shows can be more liberal leaning. The straight news is often just the facts, but they do run more left than the AP or Reuters, just not much. The BBC world portion is similar. Heavy on the facts.

What I appreciate about most of NPR, is that they don't sensationalize much, keep it calm, and have thoughtful discussions.

1A is an example of a podcast show on NPR that is thoughtful, but can stay quite to the left on some issues. Market place is more balanced. Politics with Amy Walter is very fair, but has left bias on some things. I posted two good ones from that show recently. The Takeaway is a thoughtful show, but also is a bit left. I like the local stuff too.

I'd say they focus on city issues. NPR is heavy out of NYC, Boston, DC, one show in Cali?, etc. But the main station markets are out of cities... miami, chicago, etc. So, you'll have those kind of discussions.