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]

This isn't a game. You posted this topic, then refused to engage in good faith when people took the time to respond. Your response here is just more of the same. This is the kind of crap that was to be avoided here. It's pathetic.

I have actively engaged, though I don’t have to. I don’t read this site all day in hopes of getting responses.
I can’t find in the TOS anywhere that says I am required to give answers that people want when they want them. If what I post is not appropriate, take it up with the mods.
Furthermore, why would I even want to have a conversation with you at this point woth the rhetoric you used above

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have actively engaged, though I don’t have to. I don’t read this site all day in hopes of getting responses.
I can’t find in the TOS anywhere that says I am required to give answers that people want when they want them. If what I post is not appropriate, take it up with the mods.
Furthermore, why would I even want to have a conversation with you at this point woth the rhetoric you used above

I never said you were committing TOS violations. I said that you refuse to engage in good faith, which is evident across multiple threads. You refuse to answer direct questions. You are condescending towards people who expect you to engage. And now you are getting defensive when it's pointed out.

You said you would respond when you had time to go back and look. You have made 86 posts since I first engaged you on this four days ago. I don't expect you to hang out on the board, replying within minutes to every poster that engages with you. What I do expect is to be treated with the same respect I gave to you when I first engaged.

 

[samiam5211]

I have actively engaged, though I don’t have to. I don’t read this site all day in hopes of getting responses.
I can’t find in the TOS anywhere that says I am required to give answers that people want when they want them. If what I post is not appropriate, take it up with the mods.
Furthermore, why would I even want to have a conversation with you at this point woth the rhetoric you used above

You've spent enough time arguing that you don't have to respond to people, that you could have already responded to the substantive replies you've gotten. It seems like it is more of a problem of interest than time....

 

[V Chip]

ynobody had ever made the argument that they are middle of the road or even close to center.

Surely you jest.

58% of Republicans said Fox News was the most balanced/fair of all news sources.

 

[wardorican]

of course it’s the reason we have crappy news. The thread is full of Project Veritas sucks and are liars. (This is the drivel I referred to). And almost unanimously, the same posters say that CNN of course is biased to the left and this is something that everyone knows.

So which is it? I would think those against this article would pick one strategy or the other.

1. project Veritas sucks

or

2. everyone already knows that they are reporting so it’s not unique.

when you use both arguments together, they cancel each other out and comes off as blindly partisan.

Why not both?

CNN had a liberal bias. True. They aren't hyper partisan though.
CNN reports truthful factual news. True.
CNN hosts and commentators report fact based opinions. Mixed. I feel it is important to watch those panels with healthy skepticism.

Project Veritas uses deceptive means and selective editing to take comments out of context, or outright make claims themselves and say that's what the interviewee said (vs just using the clip of them saying that). I even pointed out a few hard cuts, before the person could qualify what they were saying and how PV put words in their mouth.

I just don't see the alarm. Why is this breaking news? How is this uncovering anything new?

It's like they did a piece on how the milk you drink, comes from.... wait for it..... cows!

 

[wardorican]

So being being left biased is the same and being sensationalist?

No. But they have a bit of both. They are more about sensationalism.. blowing every story up into huge proportions. Missing Malaysian airlines flight is the easy example. I posted a video about it here. It's funny. But they make their money on running stories into the ground with hype, panels, computer graphics.... they milk each story that gets people watching or commenting ad much as possible.

They have a liberal slant, mostly editorial and definitely on their opinions, but they aren't as far left as fox or better yet, Breitbart are to the right.

 

[Lazybones]

No. But they have a bit of both. They are more about sensationalism.. blowing every story up into huge proportions. Missing Malaysian airlines flight is the easy example. I posted a video about it here. It's funny. But they make their money on running stories into the ground with hype, panels, computer graphics.... they milk each story that gets people watching or commenting ad much as possible.

They have a liberal slant, mostly editorial and definitely on their opinions, but they aren't as far left as fox or better yet, Breitbart are to the right.

Do you consider, ABC, mnbc, cbs the same as cnn?

Who do you see as the equivalent to cnn on the right?

 

[wardorican]

Do you consider, ABC, mnbc, cbs the same as cnn?

Who do you see as the equivalent to cnn on the right?

Hmm, that's a bit tricky. So, I posted a media bias / reliability chart in the media literacy thread. And like that, I'd break CNN into 2 parts, maybe 3. CNN.com, CNN news broadcast, and CNN panels/guests/opinion.

First question. Overall, CNN is close to MSNBC. They just aren't quite as biased left. I'd say the network news is much more factual and centrist (slight left). A lot of that is due to not having as many panels, opinions, etc.

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

Question 2...

For CNN.com I'd say the IJR (Independent Journal Review) is probably the right equivalent.

The problem is that there really isnt a TV broadcast network that is a true counterbalance to CNN. Fox is further from center, and a bit more mixed in factual reporting, especially by hosts and guests.

So, to me, CNN broadcast is probably counter balanced by the NY Post or the Washington Free Beacon. And that's mostly due to the panels, guests, etc.

OAN is too mixed factually but I havent watched enough to properly judge. I dont know how well they compare to fox. Maybe a bit worse?

Kinda funny, the extreme breaking news / "watching this may save your life" type hyperbole I hate about CNN is also what I hate about most of South Florida network news. They do a lot of great stuff, but also so much over the top crap.

 

[MT15]

Fox News seems to be pretty factual, slanted right for sure, mostly by what they choose to cover (or not cover) and they go a bit sensational as well. Although there have been some glitches, probably no more than other network news shows.

Where they lose points (and fall behind the other two major news networks) is their opinion hosts, who peddled birtherism, pizzagate, Seth Rich conspiracy theories for years, sometimes only stopping when sued. Some of them are only slightly better than InfoWars.

Really need to rate each network news department aside from their opinion hosts, imo.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

I have actively engaged, though I don’t have to. I don’t read this site all day in hopes of getting responses.
I can’t find in the TOS anywhere that says I am required to give answers that people want when they want them. If what I post is not appropriate, take it up with the mods.
Furthermore, why would I even want to have a conversation with you at this point woth the rhetoric you used above

You are correct. There is no rule about that, however I do want to point this part out. And I'm only stating this, because I felt your post was a good opportunity, not because I feel like you need a reminder.

There has to be somewhere on the internet where citizens of all political persuasion can enter into meaningful discourse without attacking one another. We intend to do our utmost to make this particular discussion board such a place.

There is a lot of misinformation, sensationalism, and propaganda floating around in the news, social media, fringe websites and within email chains, so be prepared to back up your arguments and iterations. Prepare to be challenged whenever other members feel that your information or representations seem to be either part of the misinformation flow, or otherwise of questionable credibility. Feel free to challenge others on the same. The goal is to get to the facts, and from that we will enlighten one another.

Passionate discussion and debate is accepted as a given, and we have no issue with that, however, we expect the discussion to be civil, and will enforce the rules to be certain that it remains that way.

When someone gives substantive discussion, and ask questions to get toward the truth, we all should oblige. I've seen a lot of healthy debate trying to get away from partisan parroting and using blue or red colored glasses, across the board as a whole. Everyone should expect to be challenged, especially if their point is unpopular or not rooted in unbiased fact - or the most likely scenario. That is subjective, and everyone won't agree on certain facts. Political news is rooted in opinion and motives. So, it will always carry some bias.

 

[Lazybones]

Hmm, that's a bit tricky. So, I posted a media bias / reliability chart in the media literacy thread. And like that, I'd break CNN into 2 parts, maybe 3. CNN.com, CNN news broadcast, and CNN panels/guests/opinion.

First question. Overall, CNN is close to MSNBC. They just aren't quite as biased left. I'd say the network news is much more factual and centrist (slight left). A lot of that is due to not having as many panels, opinions, etc.

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

Question 2...

For CNN.com I'd say the IJR (Independent Journal Review) is probably the right equivalent.

The problem is that there really isnt a TV broadcast network that is a true counterbalance to CNN. Fox is further from center, and a bit more mixed in factual reporting, especially by hosts and guests.

So, to me, CNN broadcast is probably counter balanced by the NY Post or the Washington Free Beacon. And that's mostly due to the panels, guests, etc.

OAN is too mixed factually but I havent watched enough to properly judge. I dont know how well they compare to fox. Maybe a bit worse?

Kinda funny, the extreme breaking news / "watching this may save your life" type hyperbole I hate about CNN is also what I hate about most of South Florida network news. They do a lot of great stuff, but also so much over the top crap.

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.

 

[Dragon]

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.

What do you consider clickbait leftist slant? Anything which critize Trump?

 

[Lazybones]

What do you consider clickbait leftist slant? Anything which critize Trump?

Not at all. Do you consider anything supporting trump as clickbait right slant?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

I can help with that.

"Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."

The broadcast goes left through editorials, talking heads, etc. This is where most of the leftward shift happens. The website (print) version is not happening in real time like a TV broadcast. It has more time to fact check, thus increasing accuracy. It also features less panels and opinion driven content, so it isn't as far left as the broadcast stuff.

 

[Lazybones]

I can help with that.

"Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favors the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High due to misleading information presented by guests as well as a few failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks."

The broadcast goes left through editorials, talking heads, etc. This is where most of the leftward shift happens. The website (print) version is not happening in real time like a TV broadcast. It has more time to fact check, thus increasing accuracy. It also features less panels and opinion driven content, so it isn't as far left as the broadcast stuff.

I get that, but I don’t think you are following the point I’m making. Just like it is impossible for Fox to be unbiased. Even if they have a 100% factual story, it will still be slanted right. This holds true to CNN.

I think this is standard human behavior. Ayo and I are 2 opposite people. We can witness an event standing next to each other, however our retelling of that event will be starkly different. 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 tell the story as a business man with a pull-up your bootstrap mentality. Though I empathize with his agenda and I’m pretty sure he empathizes with mine, we see things differently. No different than CNN. They are proclaimed left leaving at all levels of the organization. If that is the case, it is impossible to be unbiased on their .com.

 

[Dragon]

Not at all. Do you consider anything supporting trump as clickbait right slant?

Not if it is substantiated by facts and by that I don't mead "Trump is winning" "Trump is great" og "Trump is taking it to the libs"

Get some real confirmable facts for once and then we can talk!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I get that, but I don’t think you are following the point I’m making. Just like it is impossible for Fox to be unbiased. Even if they have a 100% factual story, it will still be slanted right. This holds true to CNN.

I think this is standard human behavior. Ayo and I are 2 opposite people. We can witness an event standing next to each other, however our retelling of that event will be starkly different. 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 tell the story as a business man with a pull-up your bootstrap mentality. Though I empathize with his agenda and I’m pretty sure he empathizes with mine, we see things differently. No different than CNN. They are proclaimed left leaving at all levels of the organization. If that is the case, it is impossible to be unbiased on their .com.

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.

 

[Lazybones]

Not if it is substantiated by facts and by that I don't mead "Trump is winning" "Trump is great" og "Trump is taking it to the libs"

Get some real confirmable facts for once and then we can talk!

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