Jump to content

Talk:CNN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Vital article

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookebetancourt99 (article contribs).

Inequitable mention of bias

The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.

Most viewers of the big three American cables news networks would agree that all three have significant, obvious biases. All three are overwhelmingly corporatist, two are left wing, one is right wing. Why is it that this article makes zero reference to the leftward slant of CNN, let alone the leftward slant of the commentators. The word "bias" appears three times on this page (all of which are in the titles of references, not in the article.) The Fox News article, however, uses the word a total of 30 times. Fox News is super bias, no doubt. But to wash the CNN page of references to this clear fact is either ignorance, or willful dishonesty. I don't think most editors here are in the latter category. Hopefully this isn't scrubbed from the page before someone can provide a reasonable response. 2601:18F:4101:4830:55AF:FC89:E9EF:1B8 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if someone is looking to dismiss the entire statement because of the Fox News comparison, feel free to disregard that part entirely. The point still stands that CNN is left leaning, and that fact is not mentioned anywhere in this article. 2601:18F:4101:4830:55AF:FC89:E9EF:1B8 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News article needs to be dealt with over at Fox News and while you may have a point, nothing will change unless you point to reliable sources that have discussed CNN as left-leaning. Slywriter (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Honestly, the bias in these articles are incredible. Right-leaning news organizations such as FOX and Sky Australia are all furnished with sections detailing its controversies. Sanger isn't wrong about this website. Blizzard-of-Revisions1220 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reality has a well-known liberal bias, as they say. Fox and Breitbart and a tiny handful of others are the outliers, and the nature of being an outlier is that they tend to be more controversial and "out there" as they rail against "big media". Hence more coverage for their non-mainstream POVs. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Reality has a well-known communist bias, as Stalin would say. Reality has a well-known fascist bias, as Mussolini would say. Reality has a well-known nazi bias, as Hitler would say." Really? Reality has no bias; its all in the eyes of the observer. If you observe CNN from a wealthy middle class suburb, I'm sure it looks very unbiased. But if you are a blue-collar worker from upstate New York watching CNN, I am sure you will detect some bias. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but there's nothing you're going to do about it, as said observers are a distinct minority. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
American liberals are hilarious. They think they are "progressives", but are only handmaidens of global capitalism. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

There is no way anyone would consider CNN’s programming to be “non-partisan”. It’s absurd!! I request that any statement even resembling that be removed. 2600:1700:3650:9320:3893:C04D:6A57:9A62 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2601:580:4200:71D0:65D2:348A:CC78:1E4B (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence should be changed from "and for its efforts to be nonpartisan," to "and for its efforts to be partisan"[1][2][3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:380C:A900:9009:70C7:3C1:86F5 (talk) 23:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

References

  1. ^ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467611/CNN-technical-director-makes-embarrassing-admission-getting-catfished-Tinder.html
  2. ^ https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/cnns-charlie-chester-says-network-peddled-anti-trump-propaganda/
  3. ^ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14645965/ccn-staffer-admits-propaganda-project-veritas/
  4. ^ https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

ReliableDave (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence should be changed from "and for its efforts to be nonpartisan," to "and for its efforts to be partisan"[1][2][3][4] 

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467611/CNN-technical-director-makes-embarrassing-admission-getting-catfished-Tinder.html
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/cnns-charlie-chester-says-network-peddled-anti-trump-propaganda/
[3] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14645965/ccn-staffer-admits-propaganda-project-veritas/
[4] https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722
 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Why not?

@ReliableDave: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The sources in your edit request are unreliable for the statement in your request. And sign your posts, please.--Renat 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious. Newsweek and NY Post aren't reliable? How convenient. How about a literal video of the technical director admitting as much plus recorded conference calls of the 9 am Zucker meetings? How isn't there a Controversy section in this article with the ExposeCNN claims that are completely valid and a serious concern for obvious bias? It would be up there if it had happened to Fox News(and rightfully so, I'd write it up myself). CNN is literal propaganda for fuck sake [1], their own technical director even says so. They don't report the news, they decide what it is. He literally says they dropped the Asian hate stuff because their investigations found that it was mostly black people and they "support the BLM movement". CNN should definitely be removed from reliable sources when it comes to politics as well, everything right-leaning has been. Fair is fair. Saying Fox News isn't reliable for politics but CNN is, is literally insane. You guys should call yourselves The Ministry of Truth. The people running this site are disgusting human beings with zero integrity but what else is new. Truth matters, not your personal opinions and political biases. Wikipedia is turning into a Stalin-like, authoritarian, hellhole that lacks anything considered close to integrity, neutrality, and most importantly the truth. I hope you know that everyone is becoming keen on your blatant attacks on truth in order to push your own personal and political agendas, it's gross. [2] 

Sawyermade (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VERITAS and WP:NYPOST. Newsweek may be a reliable source, but James O'Keefe is not. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason apart from him not aligning to your ideas? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I say this is because conducting an illegal sting does not imply the falsity of a statement. A statement's falsity is proven by evidence against its veracity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Project Veritas has been shown to doctor videos in misleading ways. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Unique One v2.0, I find it fascinating that you used Conservapedia as a source.[1] soibangla (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you state why that's not a source? Are only liberal sources reliable? Can I get evidence for that? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, oh my God! You just made my point! I was stating that many right-leaning sources state that CNN is liberal. That's exactly what you're also saying! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also, is Washington Post conservative?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's evidence that the Washington Post leans left:
https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Conservapedia is "a source," alright. Except it's trash. soibangla (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RSP, post-2013 Newsweek is a dubious source. It is a shadow of its former credibility. soibangla (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Can someone please change the line "before entering the building and destroying portions of the interior" to something else? The truth is, the furthest any protester went was probably not even halfway through the lobby! Nothing inside was destroyed. Can you please change this overdue thing? Thanks2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Question: What should that line be changed to? You'll need to provide a reliable source supporting your claim as well. Deauthorized. (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN may or may not be left-leaning but CNN is indeed considered by some to be left-leaning; that's what the edit is about.

The title means it all. Although my previous edit meant that CNN is left-leaning (which it is, according to several reliable sources that are mentioned in this edit), my present edit states that a number of sources consider CNN to be left-leaning. This is not a falsity since there are three reliable sources for this information. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You did not provide reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There were five sources. Can you please state how they are not reliable?! Removing cited information is a clear abuse of opportunity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And one of them was Conservapedia. haha soibangla (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You want to pick one out of five. How about the Washington Post? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dv8Zy-JwXr4&list=PLvzV2Ht0_cs3Q2Sq5xuzEHT5Gffm7m0ac&index=10&ab_channel=ProjectVeritasProjectVeritas
  2. ^ https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2019/10/14/james-okeefe-launches-hidden-camera-sting-on-cnn-jeff-zucker/?sh=706b3bad6d87
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN&oldid=1025451051"