Talk:CNN

Firing of CNN employees in the controversies section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Material was recently added to the controversies section about the firing of CNN employees. The source does not refer to the matter as a controversy. I believe it violates WP:DUEWEIGHT and is not a proper example of a controversy. I propose removing it.

"CNN terminated three journalists and one executive editor involved with publishing a story that purported Trump campaign officials had ties to a Russia investment fund, using one anonymous source as a citation in the published article. CNN executives claimed the retraction was due to the process not "meeting editorial standards", and that the story "wasn't solid enough to publish as-is"."
— [1]

• Support removal as proposer. - MrX 🖋 12:17, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal - This may be a controversy for the employees. But since CNN asked them to resign, it seems like a proper action by CNN; not a CNN controversy. O3000 (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support removal - per WP:UNDUE. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove - Someone adds contentious material to a contentious page citing only a single primary source, it's edit warred in contra BRD, and full protected. Not a great example of process at work. Spare me a link to the joke page wp:wrongversion -- there is a such thing as the wrong version. WP:BURDEN/WP:WEIGHT/WP:BRD and whatnot. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Because it's a significant enough event to be deemed a controversy and only one person here actually gave an explanation of why they think it should be removed. Why is listing this controversy giving it undue weight? Edit5001 (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep If a controversy section is going to be in the article (and I know there is some back and forth on that as well) I cannot see why it wouldn't be in there.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove; source doesn't describe it as a controversy, and one source mentioning it is WP:UNDUE. It's inappropriate to list every single retraction or correction as a controversy, and doing so smacks of WP:SYNTH / WP:OR in the sense that it reads more like the text is trying to declare this a meaningful controversy. --Aquillion (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - The fact that the source does not describe it as a controversy does not mean the incident is not controversial. The NYT[2] and WP[3] both reported on this incident. Curivity (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove - agree with Aquillion in full. There was a retraction and a "breakdown in editorial workflow" (per the cited source) but that does not mean this is a "controversy" important enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. The article cited includes the following passage: "'CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted,' Scaramucci tweeted the next morning. 'Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on.'" That seems to counter the idea that there was any "controversy." This is WP:SYNTH. Neutrality^talk 01:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
• Remove. Basically says that CNN caught its three journalists publishing a story purportedly exposing Trump's campaign officials, and terminated their jobs for that. It sounds more like a controversy on the part of the three journalists, and that section serves to implicitly praise CNN for handling the matter, so how does one reasonably describe it as a CNN controversy? The only thing I see that would have been controversial is if CNN had given the journalists a pass, but as we all know, it did not. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 03:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

If the incident does not fit the definition of a controversy, in your opinion, where would it go? Or is this incident not worth mentioning in the article at all? Curivity (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Not seeing how it's worth mentioning in the article at all. It's trivia relative to CNN's overall reputation. --Aquillion (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Please remove the text indicated in the green box per the above consensus. - MrX 🖋 21:13, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

 Administrator note I'd rather wait more than a day or two. But please note that, because the addition does not constitute longstanding text, per WP:ONUS, the burden of consensus is on those wishing to include the addition, not on those wishing to see it removed (despite the otherwise confusing way the question above has been constructed). That means that a no consensus result will see the passage removed rather than retained. El_C 17:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• It's not a controversy (they did exactly the right thing). I think it may be WP:UNDUE to include it at all. Guy (help!) 08:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• I see this was again restored with edit summary "Sourcing does not need to state the material is controversial for it to be controversial" - nothing in our articles should say what the sources we cite don't say. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Criticisms in the lead

I propose removing the following: "The network is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic, and for its efforts to be nonpartisan, which have led to accusations of false balance"

• Remove- as proposer, there is no evidence that these are widespread criticisms. Furthermore, at least two of the 4 sources aren't even reliable. Even if they were, this would be an WP:UNDUE weight issue. When the last time anyone has criticized any cable new network for being too "nonpartisan"? In fact, the sources provided don't even seem to support that claim.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't say it's too nonpartisan (modifying an absolute). It says efforts to be nonpartisan, akin to our WP:FALSEBALANCE. O3000 (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Yeah, this just looks like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The criticisms are well-sourced overall and the sources go into detail on how this can be a problem if you don't understand it - trying to be non-partisan to the extent that it interferes with the ability to tell the truth is not a good thing. EDIT: As a note, I replaced the two sources I presumed you objected to with higher-quality ones. --Aquillion (talk) 09:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the first half of criticisms. Remove the criticisms about apparently being "too bipartisan" that seem to come from very limited and questionable sources. Include instead criticisms of its political news for being anti-GOP and pro-Democrat. Edit5001 (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• Keep the first half. Evidence of being too bipartisan is questionable. First part of the statement is more strongly supported. 100.1.15.114 (talk) 01:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposing a Restructuring of CNN lead, adding "content" section with criticisms and new controversies

Please see the edits below, and comment your opinion on the content and sourcing. Please state what you would keep, or remove, if any.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=CNN&diff=934751195&oldid=934749032 Curivity (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

That's a lot to go over. But just at a glance:

• The Washington Examiner is a WP:BIASED source of dubious reliability. (See the discussions linked on WP:RS/P.) We can't cite them for something like this. On top of that, the piece you cited is an opinion piece, so it can't be cited for statements of fact.
• Allsides is a personal website with no particular reputation. It's unclear why you'd think it's lead-worthy.
• The chart isn't a great source; the prose article from the same source that you removed is better, since it provides more context and nuance (and that had three other sources as well.)
• You inexplicably removed a well-cited criticism from the lead.
• No particular reason why criticism from Trump should be in the lead; not everything a President says about every topic is immediately leadworthy in that topic.
• The Media Research Center / Newsbusters is likewise a WP:BIASED source of dubious reliability.
• It's unclear why you copy-pasted the Shorenstein Center study here; it's not particularly noteworthy relevant to anything else on that page, and attracted :little secondary coverage.
• Coverage of the lawsuit is scant and it's unclear why it would be noteworthy.

In summary: The sources here are terrible, almost uniformly WP:BIASED in one direction, and they aren't collectively good enough to support the things you're trying to add. Having WP:BIASED outlets accuse everyone else of bias isn't noteworthy or newsworthy - of course sources like the Washington Examiner or Newbusters, whose entire purpose is to push a partisan POV, are going to claim that every source that disagrees with them is biased; you'd need higher-profile mainstream sources agreeing with them for it to be noteworthy. In short, none of these edits are an improvement, and most of the sources cited are so bafflingly bad that you weaken your argument simply by including them. --Aquillion (talk) 09:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Commenting here because I was the one who reverted it, but Aquillion more or less already covered it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Washington Examiner is not worthy of inclusion simply because you perceive it as biased. And they aren't accusing "everyone else" of bias, they're reporting on problems with CNN. Edit5001 (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• The Washington Examiner is a WP:BIASED source of dubious reliability. (See the discussions linked on WP:RS/P.) We can't cite them for something like this. On top of that, the piece you cited is an opinion piece, so it can't be cited for statements of fact.}

The Examiner is a conservative-leaning news publication, but follows all standards of journalistic integrity. WP:BIASED does not stipulate the source cannot be used if it is biased, only that editors follow a neutral point of view. In the interest of NPOV, I included some criticisms of CNN, mostly by conservative news publications, but just the fact that conservatives criticize CNN does not mean the sourcing is invalid. See sourcing for Fox News critcisms if you need any further clarification.

• Allsides is a personal website with no particular reputation. It's unclear why you'd think it's lead-worthy.
• The chart isn't a great source; the prose article from the same source that you removed is better, since it provides more context and nuance (and that had three other sources as well.)
• You inexplicably removed a well-cited criticism from the lead.}

Please explain what you mean by a personal website? Allsides claims to be a media research organization, such as Adfontesmedia. They have been sourced in articles from other publications.

The Adfontesmedia chart directly refutes the previous sourced claim by the same organization. The chart is a reputable source to explain the category of bias they place CNN within. I removed the previous sourcing because it refutes their current claims. I also removed a previous cited claim, as CNN is not viewed to engage within "false balance" if there are other sources contradicting that claim. Perhaps we could use both?

• No particular reason why criticism from Trump should be in the lead; not everything a President says about every topic is immediately leadworthy in that topic.
• The Media Research Center / Newsbusters is likewise a WP:BIASED source of dubious reliability.
• It's unclear why you copy-pasted the Shorenstein Center study here; it's not particularly noteworthy relevant to anything else on that page, and attracted :little secondary coverage.}

Trump routinely criticizes CNN, and arguably has based his Fake News claims, upon CNN's coverage. This should be included in the proposed "content" section, and mentioned in the lead as this is unprecedented in the history of presidential politics. This should at least be included in the content section.

See explanation above. I've checked the methods of the MRC; just because an organization is conservative-leaning, does not explain why the source is not following NPOV. Please explain further why the sources are not following NPOV. Refer to Fox News sourcing for criticisms if you need any clarification.

Coverage of the lawsuit is scant and it's unclear why it would be noteworthy.

In summary: The sources here are terrible, almost uniformly WP:BIASED in one direction, and they aren't collectively good enough to support the things you're trying to add. Having WP:BIASED outlets accuse everyone else of bias isn't noteworthy or newsworthy - of course sources like the Washington Examiner or Newbusters, whose entire purpose is to push a partisan POV, are going to claim that every source that disagrees with them is biased; you'd need higher-profile mainstream sources agreeing with them for it to be noteworthy. In short, none of these edits are an improvement, and most of the sources cited are so bafflingly bad that you weaken your argument simply by including them.

Coverage of the Lawsuit is not scant. Many high profile sources reported on the settlement.

See explanations above.Curivity (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking this to WP:RSN, here. The Washington Examiner and Newsbusters are such unfathomably terrible sources for this that it seems not really worth trying to discuss it here. Also, as a reminder, your recent revert breached the WP:1RR. --Aquillion (talk) 06:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. Volunteer Marek 06:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• The sources Curivity used for this were unambiguously inappropriate. The Washington Examiner is a tabloid owned by the Unification Church (Moonies). Per WP:RSP: "[T]here is consensus that it should not be used to substantiate exceptional claims. Almost all editors consider the Washington Examiner a partisan source and believe that statements from this publication should be attributed." It fails WP:PARITY in this article. The references to Allsides and Ad Fontes are inappropriate, we don't cite those (we have insufficient data on their peer review processes), though we do use them for internal guidance as litmus tests. Ad Fontes is also misrepresented as used: CNN news is in the "green box of joy" - neutral or balanced, high reliability. CNN comment is left-leaning, but nobody disputes that (the singular thing in context is that CNN's comment is as biased as Fox News' news, and substantially more factually accurate, establishing CNN as firmly within the mainstream and Fox as distinctly problematic). We don't cite Trump's opinion for obvious reasons. He combines a historically unprecedented level of dishonesty with a completely transactional world-view where anything that is complimentary to him personally is reliable, and everything else is "fake news". His statements on the media generally, when they rise to the level of actual coherence, are "old man yells at cloud" level crazy. Most of the rest of the disputed content is blatant WP:SYN. Example: yes, trust in the media is at an all-time low, but that's a deliberate conservative strategy, in exactly the same way that they used "fear, uncertainty and doubt" to undermine the link between tobacco and cancer, then the facts of evolutionary biology, then the facts about anthropogenic climate change. The same consultants in each case, in fact. There's a mountain of scholarly work on this, the deliberate undermining of the shared basis of empirical fact as a technique for isolating incorrect ideas against refutation. It's an effect, not a cause.

CNN does lean slightly left. Most mainstream media does. Partly because of the type of people who go into journalism, partly because the facts have a well-known liberal bias, and partly because the Overton window has now moved so far tot he right that Reagan and Nixon would be rejected by today's GOP as too left-wing (remember, Nixon created the EPA that the Kochs are dead set on the GOP destroying). Guy (help!) 09:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

comment:So facts have a liberal bias.....but the people who keep saying this oppose additions to this article noting CNN's liberal tendencies.....while simultaneously admitting it on the talk page. My irony-o-meter is going nuts on that one. (Just had to note that.....carry on.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 04:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

• I reviewed this yesterday (before reading Aquillion's list) and upon reading the list, I wholly agree with it and would add that the extent of the material would probably be WP:UNDUE even with proper sources. Multiple proper sources could change that of course. The entire section about Trump's opinion is cartoonish. Trump is not a credible source for pretty much anything. - MrX 🖋 14:04, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Why is Guy using this discussion to lecture us on the politics of the world and of Trump? I did not interject any of my own personal biases within my edits, all the claims were backed up by sourcing. The problem here is how reputable or reliable you feel the sourcing is. I'm trying to add another perspective on CNN that is widely reported by conservative-leaning press, and is felt by a good subset of the country. I'm trying to better make this article follow NPOV standards. Right now, barely any conservative-leaning sourcing is allowed, and therefore there are almost no takes from the other side.

In addition to that, I'm trying to include widely reported stories that affect CNN, such as the Sandmann incident, or the resignation incident, but even these aren't allowed in the article under your standards? If you want to argue where to put the material in the article, apart from controversies, that's fine. But how could you argue that isn't worthy of including in the article whatsoever?

Once again, I refer back to Fox News. There are many claims within the article backed by wholly biased sourcing such as Media Matters. Simply being biased one way or the other doesn't exclude the criticisms. The only reason people are trying to discredit any conservative-leaning organization is because that then enables them to shut out that perspective or criticism, formulating a narrative within Wikipedia itself! WP:Other applies here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

The "conservative-leaning press" you try to cite is not reliable or trustworthy. It is not really the fault of the Wikipedia that Newsbusters, the Washington Examiner, and the others you tried to use have no interest in fact-checking, accuracy, or journalistic ethics. ValarianB (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2020

CNN is a liberal network 2600:1012:B064:E734:FCFD:FF6:5EA3:3819 (talk) 11:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done No specific edit requested. CIreland (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)