Talk:CNN/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2019

Change "CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based pay television channel owned by AT&T's WarnerMedia." to "CNN (Cable News Network) is an American liberal news-based pay television channel owned by AT&T's WarnerMedia." RonLevitt (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: This has been discussed many times as can be sseen here O3000 (talk) 13:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

CNN Student News/CNN 10

If CNN Student News is mentioned, where is it? Otherwise, can I edit it in?

Namethatisnotinuse (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Households

Are there any newer numbers about spectators? What about a decline in viewership?

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

The introduction states: "CNN is an American news-based pay television channel owned by AT&T's WarnerMedia." It should state: "CNN is an American progressive news-based pay television channel owned by AT&T's WarnerMedia."

If political leanings are going to be in the description for one news site, it should be the same for all. This is based off of the introduction for Fox news which states: "Fox News is an American conservative pay television news channel." 209.249.106.67 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

CNN left leaning bias

According to Allsides review, CNN has moved from centrist to left leaning bias on the news coverage

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwornson (talk • contribs) 16:12, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Near as I can see, Allsides is just random folks and maybe bots. Not WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

AllSides can be a hit or miss, Adfontesmedia has shown CNN to be "skewing left", close to the "hyper-partisan left" category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curivity (talk • contribs) 07:47, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Opening should include criticisms of the network's bias

Since the Fox News page's opener includes criticisms of its coverage, so too should CNN's. I suggest some (or all) of the following sources for the sentence "It has also been criticized as left leaning and anti-conservative in its political news coverage." in the opener. OneTwo Three Four Five Six — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edit5001 (talk • contribs)

Please read WP:RS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Fox News, Business Insider, Washington Times, and the National Review are all acceptable sources as per WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. There's been no review of AllSides there but it seems to be a decent non-partisan source. Edit5001 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Business Insider is a news aggregater and cannot be judged as RS on its own. Fox is a direct competitor and obviously not RS for criticism of a competitor. Washington Times (founded by the Moonie Church) is to be avoided with anything controversial, and obviously with criticism with competitor “news” sources. Same with National Review. O3000 (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Being competitors absolutely does not disqualify citing a source for factual data on criticisms of another. If that was the case, no news outlet at all could be used to source criticism of CNN, or any other news outlet. Fox News, National Review, and Washington Times in this case are all citing factual information, and are not simply opinion pieces, so they're valid to include. Across all of Wikipedia, criticisms are used in citations of "competitors" commonly. Indeed, on the very Fox News page, CNN is cited for criticism of the network in the opener. Edit5001 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Then comment about that on the CNN talk page. Fox has, since day one, criticized all other networks on a near constant basis. This is not valid criticism for encyclopedic purposes. Please read WP:RS and WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

To even say it's the outlets themselves criticizing CNN, as you're doing, is disingenuous. Fox News is NOTING criticism that CNN is receiving, it isn't a writer giving their opinion why CNN is bad. Fox is indeed reporting how CNN's own staffers are the ones bashing its liberal bias. Likewise, National Review and Washington Times are reporting on a study that found 97% of CNN's GOP coverage was negative. Edit5001 (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Find sources that aren't competitors. And don't use the Washington Times for anything slightly controversial. O3000 (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You didn't address a single one of my points. Question: Will you go to Fox News and hold that article to the same exact standard? Edit5001 (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely yes. And, for the third and last time, WP:OTHERCONTENT. Would you add to the Coca Cola article a statement that it is inferior to Pepsi using as a source PepsiCo? O3000 (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm most likely going to do a RFC because I think you extremely misunderstand how applying Reliable Sources works. I have yet to see a single, solitary Wikipedia article where otherwise reliable sources reporting facts are discounted because they might be "competitors". If you're indeed going to go apply the same standard to the Fox News page, there's at least 6 competitors being used to cite criticism against it: Vox, PBS News, CNN, Media Matters, the New Yorker, and USA Today.Edit5001 (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Objective3000's comments. I would also add that you should not add material to the lead unless it is thoroughly covered in the body of the article. The lead is for significant points, not pot shots from questionable sources like Fox News and the Washington Times. - MrX 🖋 00:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

These aren't potshots. CNN's anti-conservative bias is already well touched on in the Controversies section/CNN Controversies page. Furthermore, Fox News' coverage is touching on footage and recordings of CNN obtained by a third party source. Even furthermore, there are four other sources I've suggested as citations outside of Washington Times and Fox if you really take issue with using them. Edit5001 (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, You appear to discount the possibility that criticism of the current state of the conservative movement is objectively valid and the correct position of a neutral onlooker. That's the false balance fallacy.

You need to find obviously good things done by conservatives that the mainstream media has attacked anyway. After all, criticising the white nationalist immigration enforcement policy is exactly what any reasonable person would be expected to do regardless of their position on the liberal/conservative scale. Racism is bad. There was a war and everything. Guy (help!) 19:07, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in the controversies section about anti-conservative bias. The project Veritas material is unusable as far as I'm concerned. - MrX 🖋 00:16, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Directly from the page "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral."

The Donna Brazile case is also a flagrant example of anti-Republican/anti-Trump bias. Election meddling, even. Edit5001 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

How does that in any way indicate bias? Most news orgs tend to be negative about extremists of any breed, left or right, or innumerable other groups. That is not what the word bias means. And calling this election meddling is beyond the pale. O3000 (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Who exactly are the "extremists" you're referring to? John McCain and Mitt Romney? You've got to be joking. That is the definition of bias. And giving debate questions in advance to one candidate and not the other before a debate happens is also the definition of bias. Edit5001 (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Donna Brazile was resigned and there is exactly zero evidence that CNN had anything to do with this. The study you refer to suggested that ALL news orgs tend to publish negative stories these days, including Fox at the time of the study. I suggest that you examine your own biases and not bring up red herrings like Brazille to make unsubstantiated claims of corporate biases. This is an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

What the study found on other organizations is irrelevant to the fact that it still found repeated, noticeable bias from CNN. Other studies I've cited elsewhere here found that 97% of CNN's coverage toward the GOP in recent years has been negative. CNN's own staff in other stories have noted the organizations anti-conservative bias. Meanwhile, the Brazile story is well substantiated - and why would CNN staff be providing the Clinton campaign debate questions in advance if not bias? Brazile only resigned after the email proof of her actions was leaked. Edit5001 (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest doing a RFC on this to settle it. Other editors (including me) have noted some of the same things as you in the past.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the OP's sentiments. CNN has a perceived bias from Adfrontesmedia, in between skewing left and hyper-partisan left. CNN has also terminated employees that were involved with an article that purported Russia Investment fund ties with Trump officials.. I suggest we include these biases as discussed in the lead paragraph.

References

Actually, the chart you cite does not show CNN as hyper-partisan. And it shows CNN-online as "most reliable for news" and CNN-cable as "reliable for news, but high in analysis/opinion content". As for your last cite, those editors were resigned. That would seem to show non-bias. O3000 (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

A source being biased doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't report true information. It means it's selective in what information it reports, and that misleads viewers by omission. In the over nine sources myself and others have presented so far showing CNN's bias and complaints about CNN's bias, the issue is that they're anti-conservative and GOP. Not that they regularly publish false news. This is why their well documented bias is fitting for the opener. Edit5001 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Or it publishes outright falsehoods, as Fox does. Guy (help!) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

According to Politifact, 30% of CNN's claims they fact checked were either mostly false, false, or pants on fire false. So they certainly publish some inaccurate or false information. Edit5001 (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

• This question conflates two separate issues.

The first is the degree of partisanship. Fox is highly partisan, acting as effectively a propaganda outlet for the Republican Party (which is in fact the job it was designed to do by Roger Ailes, a former Nixon media consultant). A great deal of Fox's programming is opinion, and its language and rhetoric misrepresents is hyper partisan bias as a neutral voice even after they dropped the infamous "fair and balanced" slogan. CNN is less partisan, it is within the continuum of mainstream news. Mainstream is not the opposite of conservative, mainstream, is that body of news reporting that shares a common body of objective fact regardless of their editorial take on that fact.

The second factor is the incentives at play. In Network Propaganda, Robert Faris and Yochai Benkler identify and assymetric partisanship in US media. Conservative media are penalised for publishing truth that conflicts with conservative messaging, whereas mainstream and liberal media are both penalised for publishing ideologically acceptable but incorrect statements.

Thus, CNN correctly says that the idea of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election is a Russian hoax, whereas Fox has broadcast on air that Ukraine, not Russia, was responsible for it.

It is normal for reality-based media to criticise a broadcaster that promotes conspiracy theories and propaganda emanating from the West's most dangerous geopolitical foe.

We can also include criticism of CNN, but only from reliable sources. So not Fox, not the Washington Times, not National Review, because we shouldn't use those as sources for anything. And a survey of Americans will only reveal the extent to which they have been brainwashed into believing that the reality-based media is "fake news" - it's a measure not of reliability but of the effectiveness of propaganda. See if you can find a copy of that Harvard essay that's been published in the peer-reviewed literature. Guy (help!) 19:02, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Fox, National Review, and Washington Times are all acceptable sources. You disagreeing with how they go about their activities doesn't invalidate them as citation worthy, especially when they're simply reporting facts. The Fox story in particular I'm trying to use isn't some Fox reporter giving their opinion, it's them reviewing evidence against CNN's activities and criticism of CNN by its own journalists.

I also gave a few other sources besides Fox, National Review, and Washington Times, but have received zero response as to why they shouldn't be citation worthy. Edit5001 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, only for hard fact, not for opinion. You have to be careful to distinguish between news and opinion with both Fox and CNN. The Ad Fontes chart analyses CNN commentary as being roughly as skewed as Fox News, and CNN news as being solidly mainstream, but CNN commentary is still substantially more reliable than Fox News. This is mainly because hard news reporting on Fox is an endangered species, especially now Shep Smith has left.

You seem to be trying to prove that CNN is as biased and inaccurate as Fox. Independent analysis shows that not to be the case. There is legitimate criticism of CNN but it is far from dominant, whereas the majority of scholarly analysis of Fox shows it to be uniquely toxic to the American political ecosystem. Guy (help!) 10:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG Independent analysis has noted that CNN has been anti-GOP and pro-Barrack Obama (and recently, pro-Democrat) in its political coverage. This is actually noted in the "Controversies" part of this page. Since you agree that there is some legitimate criticism of CNN, a single sentence mentioning that in the header is warranted. I'm not proposing a giant paragraph like what exists on the Fox page. Edit5001 (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, So find reliable independent secondary sources that say so, and suggest wording based on them. Nobody denies that CNN cable is left-leaning. Guy (help!) 00:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG I have suggested some of the following sources as citations for a sentence such as "CNN's political coverage has also been criticized as biased against Republican and conservatives". (I'm open to improving the wording but that would be the ideal sentence).

This report on a study done on MSNB and CNN's political coverage that found "“overwhelming partisan bias" on MSNBC and CNN in regards to interviews and questions with Republican vs Democrat candidates.

This report on a Harvard study that indicated over 90% of CNN's coverage of Trump was negative.

This report from AllSides.com explaining why they shifted CNN to the left in their media bias rating. Edit5001 (talk) 01:54, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You continue to use poor sources and simply false statements. The Pew research (which you call Harvard) suggests, according to your logic, MSNBC is the most balanced (which is absurd), based on your pick of a lousy source cherry-picking. And yet you claim it has "overwhelming partisan bias". O3000 (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

... Not a single source above mentions Pew Research. Edit5001 (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You cite a Washington Times article that uses as its source newsbusters.org, an extremist site that says: “NewsBusters cuts through the leftist propaganda and exposes the media’s liberal bias, bringing the truth to the American people” and repeatedly uses the term “OBAMAGASMS”, as a sexual negation. Do you think this is a good source for an encyclopedia? You neglect to mention that the Harvard study stated: “Never in the nation's history has the country had a president with so little fidelity to the facts, so little appreciation for the dignity of the presidential office, and so little understanding of the underpinnings of democracy." Perhaps that has something to do with the negative coverage instead of bias. You have repeatedly used quotes from the 2007 Pew study claiming they were from the Harvard study, cherry-picking them and ignoring the conclusion. Your conclusion that any of this shows bias is WP:OR based on lousy sources. O3000 (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times is reporting on the Media Research Center study, not Newsbusters. Newsbusters is simply one of the other sources reporting on the study. I cited the Washington Times, not Newsbusters, who are in turn basing their research off a study from an independent organization (Media Research Center), so yes I absolutely believe it's fitting for an encyclopedia. Because it is. As for the Harvard study, it also notes; "Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency." So even they admit that conservatives are justified in some of their complaints of bias. They even go as far as to say "At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. " ... which is exactly what right leaning organizations have said. Organizations like CNN do not give the president positive coverage even during positive moments, which is the heart of the criticism against CNN. Edit5001 (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

• No, that’s not what perennial sources says about Washington Times and Washington Examiner.
• No, the Washington Times does not link to the Media Research Center. The word “study” in the second sentence of the article links to newsbusters.org. This is one of the reasons the Washington Times is a poor source. It uses bad sources.
• And you continue to cherry-pick. First, you quote: Nevertheless, the sheer level of negative coverage gives weight to Trump’s contention, one shared by his core constituency, that the media are hell bent on destroying his presidency. But, you omit the directly preceding: So why is Trump’s coverage so negative even though he does most of the talking? The fact is, he’s been on the defensive during most of his 100 days in office, trying to put the best face possible on executive orders, legislative initiatives, appointments, and other undertakings that have gone bad. Even Fox has not been able to save him from what analyst David Gergen called the “worst 100 days we’ve ever seen.”
• And you quote: At the same time, the news media need to give Trump credit when his actions warrant it. But, you omitted the immediately succeeding sentence: The news media’s exemplary coverage of Trump’s cruise missile strike on Syria illustrates the type of even-handedness that needs to be consistently and rigorously applied. That is, the media does say positive things about the POTUS. You are cherry-picking and adding your own opinions in an apparent effort to show bias that has not been shown to exist. You must be more careful in your claims here. O3000 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

*The reliable sources page is clear that the sources are marginally reliable. It certainly does not dismiss them outright, as you do.

*The Washington Times is reporting on the Media Research Center study. It's using quotes from the study. It's not quoting or reporting on Newsbusters.org.

*The context you're trying to point out here is irrelevant; Trump's been on the defensive precisely because he knows groups like CNN will attack anything and everything he does. What the study firmly establishes is what I've been saying from the beginning: There are credible criticisms of CNN for its coverage of Republicans. Not just from Trump, from many, many conservative sources as well as the public itself as was noted by Harvard and can be seen in opinion polls on CNN's bias.

*Yes, they provide a single example of one of the few times CNN actually did what it was supposed to do. In context they're directly saying "CNN, you generally don't give neutral/positive coverage even when the president does neutral/positive things. Here's one example of you actually doing what a balanced media organization is supposed to do. Please do more of that." Edit5001 (talk) 17:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not what they said., First you cherry-pick. Now you invent. I stand by all my comments. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, Washington Times is a partisan tabloid and not reliable for this content. Washington Examiner is a conservative site and not reliable for this content: the "Harvard study" doesn't say what you think it does (the fact that most coverage of Trump is negative is easily explained by the awful things he does, even Fox was negative half the time and CNN was smack in the middle of mainstream sources in proportion of negative coverage). Allsides is as yet unknown, we don't have a solid consensus on how reliable they are. But you can look at the AdFontes media bias chart, which places CNN News in the green box of joy (politically centre left but high for reliability), and CNN cable / commentary "skews left" but still reliable for news (reliability score around 36, alignment about 12-15 left). For comparison, Fox News is +16 right and about 28/40 for accuracy and Fox channel is 20+ right bias and 26/40 for reliability with "some reliability issues and / or extremism".

The attempt to paint Fox and CNN as similar is doomed to failure, because they clearly are not. CNN News is mainstream, CNN cable is left-leaning but still within the mainstream. Fox News is by now outside of the mainstream and Fox channel is in the hyper-partisan right media bubble.

I already pointed most of this out. You do not seem to be adapting your position to facts that refute your premise. Guy (help!) 11:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

JzG You dismiss reliable sources that contradict your viewpoint outright, despite both Washington Times and Washington Examiner being fine according to WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial sources. A source being mildly partisan isn't enough to dismiss it as a source for claims of bias. That's not a refutation, it's sticking your head in the sand. The Harvard study urges the media to... "give Trump credit when his actions warrant it." because groups like CNN currently do not and by not doing so they undermine what little credibility they have left. So the Harvard study certainly doesn't mean what you're claiming it means. The researchers go as far as to say "The nation’s watchdog has lost much of its bite and won’t regain it until the public perceives it as an impartial broker, applying the same reporting standards to both parties."

Also, AdFontes is not the supreme arbiter of what sources are considered reliable enough to be cited on Wikipedia. Edit5001 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, no, I dismiss unreliable sources because they are unreliable. You think Project Veritas and Fox and the Washington Times are reliable, you are the one who is out of step with the consensus on Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 10:06, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

There's a serious problem when I add into the "Controversies" section the factual news report that CNN fired an executive and three journalists resigned for not meeting journalist integrity standards set fourth by CNN itself and this is removed right away. What's going on here guys, we can't even include what CNN has admitted themselves, but we can include whatever biased partisan "news" source (mainly commentary) on Fox News or conservative organizations? Reliable sourcing is not partisan and shouldn't be. I will be adding this back in as soon as the article is opened up again. Curivity (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

By the way, I completely agree OP. Curivity (talk) 22:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Some employees screwed up and were fired. How is this a controversy? O3000 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The incident was widely reported, including by the NYT and WP. The journalists and the editor used one anonymous source to claim Trump campaign officials were in cahoots with Russia investment fund. The article purported the claims to be factual, when in reality it was not factual. It fits the definition of a controversy.

Do you actually not understand that CNN has reported news for 39 years 24/7? Obviously errors will be made. They not only retracted but fired everyone involved. How can anyone, for one second, consider this a controversy? They didn't spend years pushing debunked conspiracy theories refusing to stop, like some channels. The fact that they took such dramatic action is in their favor. Find a reliable source that says otherwise. 01:20, 29 December 2019 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

The controversy section should include a few more examples

While the section is covered elsewhere, there used to be far more in this article, and it was removed seemingly without ever getting consensus. There should be a few of the controversies from the main controversy page listed on this page. I stand by the additions to the controversy section I made. Edit5001 (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Why? CNN is not known for being especially controversial. - MrX 🖋 00:09, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes they are. Public polling ranks them the #5 most biased News outlet. The president of the United States has threatened to sue them for their biased coverage of him. The CNN controversies page has at least 25 different controversies involving the network or its staff. Edit5001 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Your BusinessInsider poll indicating CNN was biased only included Republicans. Trump threatens to sue everyone and is certainly not a reliable source. CNN has been around for 39 years. Of course it has some controversies. Your editing on multiple TPs has clearly crossed over the line of WP:TE and possibly WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 01:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Your review of the Business Insider poll is simply not true. Did you even read the page/source? The poll was on all Americans. The page says; A Gallup/Knight Foundation survey found that Americans think most of the news they consume is inaccurate and biased... "Here are the survey's results for how biased respondents thought each news outlet was overall, ranked from most to least biased (a negative score indicates more people said the outlet was more biased than unbiased, while a positive score indicates more people thought the outlet was more unbiased than biased):"

Trying to protect CNN from fair criticism from a variety of sources and groups of people is the definition of WP:TE. Edit5001 (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, as you now have made a ridiculous non-WP:AGF accusation, I'll leave you to your own biases. Please read WP:TE, WP:OTHERCONTENT, WP:RS. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

You accuse me of WP:TE but when I accuse you of the same, suddenly I'm the one not assuming good faith. Just sad. As I said, will probably do a RFC at this rate. Edit5001 (talk) 01:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Edit5001, a public poll is not evidence of anything. After three years on the receiving end of the MAGAphone about 1/3 of Americans think that anything that presents reality is "fake news" while the latest conspiracist claptrap served to Breitbart from the Kremlin is peerless truth. Guy (help!) 10:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

It's based on more than simply a poll; to repeat what I said elsewhere: I suggest some (or all) of the following sources for the sentence "It has also been criticized as left leaning and anti-conservative in its political news coverage." in the opener. OneTwo Three Four Five Six Edit5001 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

One is Fox, so unreliable. Two is a conference presentation but could be reliable is subsequently published in a peer-reviewed journal, however, it would still not support the text proposed. Three is an opinion survey and not an objective measure of bias. Four is the Washington Times reporting (uncritically) the Media Research Center, a conservative "watchdog", so is not reliable. Five is a site which may at some time be considered reliable but as yet has insufficient track record. The analysis conflicts with the more established Ad Fontes Media chart, and does not have an accuracy axis, as that does, and does not attempt to place sources on any kind of continuum (lean left is a range in the latter, you can see that bias tends to increase as accuracy decreases, with CNN less biased and more accurate than Fox). Six is National Review so obviously unreliable - you appear to consider editorial ideology disqualifying when talking about Fox but not CNN, not sure why. All this has, I think, already been covered. So your six "reliable" sources amount to one that might be reliable is peer reviewed, but is not relevant to the point made, and one that might be reliable but we'd need third party commentary and balance from competing rating systems that are more widely used. Guy (help!) 11:48, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Honestly we probably shouldn't even have a controversy section at all - per WP:CSECTION, they're not a great way to structure articles (in part because of problems like this, where they draw people eager to fill them out without regard for WP:DUE weight.) More generally, the problem with the criticisms you list here is that they're not really criticisms of CNN specifically - most coverage tracks it as part of a sweeping criticism against the entire mainstream media, of which CNN is just the most prominent example. --Aquillion (talk) 05:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aquillion: I'm basing this all off of how the Fox page is edited. I'm frankly disgusted how all of these networks are not covered even-handedly by the editors here, and at least 3 other editors have expressed similar sentiments. Edit5001 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

In no way have you shown that network articles are not edited in an even-handed manner. Please do not casually attack editors. O3000 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's start with the fact that the Fox News page's opener has an entire paragraph dedicated to highlighting criticisms of the network's credibility. This page, meanwhile, has refused to allow even a single sentence in the opener noting criticism's of CNN's coverage despite over seven sources noting such criticisms. Edit5001 (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

For the nth time, WP:OTHERCONTENT. These are two different articles about two different organizations. The fact that the articles differ does not mean uneven editing. You must discuss this article here and that article there. And your sources are mostly poor or misinterpreted. For example, you said: According to Politifact, 30% of CNN's claims they fact checked were either mostly false, false, or pants on fire false. This is flat out false. The article said: This scorecard shows the ratings for statements made on air by CNN personalities and their pundit guests. You ignored the pundits part. CNN invites many pundits that make false claims, including staunch supporters of the president. Are you saying they shouldn't do this? Incidentally, the CNN number was 30% and the Fox number from the same source was 59%. O3000 (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It does mean uneven editing when there are double standards being applied (competitors can't be cited as criticism of CNN, but competitors can be cited for criticism of Fox??). Again, looking at the history of the articles I'm far from the only one to note these problems either.

"CNN invites many pundits that make false claims..." which means they are allowing incorrect information to be disseminated from their news outlet. This is one of the many things they're criticized for. What's probably most stunning about the opener is that it includes criticisms of CNN from the left (apparently they're TOO bipartisan according to some sources), and totally leaves out criticisms of CNN from the right (that it's political coverage is hostile to the GOP and heavily favored Obama and other Democrats by comparison).Edit5001 (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Are you actually suggesting that CNN is biased because it invites supporters of the president who repeat his falsities? Besides, they don't do this in a vacuum. They have other guests that counter the falsities. And, I will NOT discuss the Fox article here because we don't do that. O3000 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no "standard" for editing articles about news organizations, nor is there any requirement that they have the same type of structure, content, or sources. The WP:LEAD (not the opener) covers significant points in the article, not material that editors want to inject to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Content decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS. - MrX 🖋 21:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Its political coverage is biased because just 3% of its political questions were friendly to the GOP in the last election cycle. Democrat candidates were also featured significantly more often and given questions that aligned with their talking points.

Its political coverage is biased because Harvard's study found they heavily favored Barrack Obama in all of their coverage of him.

Its political coverage is biased because its own leading staff members have said it's biased.

Its political coverage is biased because 93% of its Trump coverage has been negative.

The very least we can do is include a sentence in the lead that mentions these criticisms. Indeed the lead already includes criticisms from those who suggest CNN is too bipartisan. Edit5001 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times and Washington Examiner are to be avoided when other sources are available. The Fox link is to a Project Veritas story. PV famously dishonestly edits videos to make liberals look bad and should never be used as a source for anything. The fact that Fox uses them is an example of Fox bias and carelessness. The fact that most coverage of Trump is negative in no way indicates bias. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

They're the main sources reporting this (meaning others aren't available), so it's okay to use them. Fox is reporting on PV so it's fine to use the Fox article. PV also did not deceptively edit the sentences being quoted in the Fox article. The employees said them loud and clear. As for Trump coverage, it absolutely is bias. When one chooses to only cover negative stories on a public figure and avoid positive ones to the tune of 90%, that's bias. It's also arguable that it doesn't even matter whether you or I think it's bias - others do, and they're saying they think so, so we can include the fact that others have criticized CNN for what they see as bias. Edit5001 (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

No, when mainstream sources don't cover something, but biased sources do, then that something shouldn't be added. Project Veritas is not fine under any circumstances. Read the article on it. The group is known for producing deceptively edited videos about media organizations and left-leaning groups. It's shameful that Fox used them as a source. And what you just claimed is in the Harvard study isn't. This is the second time that you have misstated a source. O3000 (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says that these sources may be used "depending on the context". The context here is that they're reporting on criticisms of CNN for its lack of impartiality. Since what we'd like to include here is criticisms of CNN for its lack of impartiality, they're perfectly acceptable sources. In regards to Fox, they're still a reliable source as per the [WP:RS] page, so while you may disagree with how they operate there is zero rule that prevents them from being cited here.

Here is exactly what the Harvard study says; The press also gave some candidates measurably more favorable coverage than others. Democrat Barack Obama, the junior Senator from Illinois, enjoyed by far the most positive treatment of the major candidates during the first five months of the year—followed closely by Fred Thompson, the actor who at the time was only considering running. Arizona Senator John McCain received the most negative coverage—much worse than his main GOP rivals.

It continues; CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates; Fox was more negative towards Democrats--and more positive towards Republicans; MSNBC gave decidedly positive coverage towards both. Edit5001 (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think you're confusing the Harvard Shorenstein study with a Pew Research study 12 years ago. The quote provided was from Pew, not Harvard. If you read the Pew conclusion, it doesn't at all indicate any CNN bias. In fact, it doesn't mention CNN at all. It provides several reasons for the reporting unrelated to liberal/conservative bias and applied it to the press in general, not specific sources. You really should be more careful in using sources. O3000 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

"CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates". What part of this fact are you taking issue with? Edit5001 (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

That does not indicate bias. Claiming that is does would be WP:OR. This has been discussed several times in the past. O3000 (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, you didn't quote the entire sentence (from Pew, not Harvard). The full quote was: CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates; Fox was more negative towards Democrats–and more positive towards Republicans; MSNBC gave decidedly positive coverage towards both. So, is your conclusion that MSNBC is the most balanced news source? O3000 (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be used as a citation for the sentence in question but what it does show for purposes of this discussion is that sources like Fox, the Washingtonton Examiner, and the Washington Times all absolutely have legs to stand on when they accuse CNN of not covering Republican candidates fairly (on top of everything else they're reporting on the issue). Edit5001 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Then, I guess it shows that MSNBC is the fair and balanced news source. Seriously, the conclusion states no such thing. Your source cherry-picked and came to a conclusion not in the study. O3000 (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

None of the sources I'm citing are using that Harvard study. That is merely a third party demonstrating that CNN has drastic differences in how it covers Democrat vs Republican candidates.

The Washington Examiner article is covering another Harvard study that found CNN's coverage of Trump was overwhelmingly negative (and when compared to all other presidents, the comparison isn't even close). That's a perfectly fair and rational article critiquing CNN.

The Washington Times meanwhile is covering a study from the Media Research Center that found “...an overwhelming partisan bias on MSNBC, where congressional Democrats were interviewed 13 times more often than their GOP counterparts during sample weeks (148 Democrats vs. just 11 Republicans). On CNN, the ratio was a still wildly-imbalanced four to one (136 vs. 29).” The article goes on to say "When Republicans guests were asked questions containing agenda items, only 3% of those questions were friendly toward GOP policy. They found, however, that 81% of the policy questions that went to Democratic guests were friendly to the Democratic agenda."

Both of these sources are perfectly valid and rational criticisms of CNN. They thus are worth citing for a sentence along the lines of "CNN's political coverage has been criticized for what some view as biased coverage against Republicans". Edit5001 (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

And MSNBC is the most balanced of them. I don't believe that. Do you? This is what happens when you use lousy sources and original research. And, "some view" would be immediately tagged if not removed. Your sources are extremely biased, your cherry-picking and partial quotes show bias, your use of Project Veritas shows lack of judgement, you draw conclusions not in the cited reports and claim they are the conclusions -- frankly, and I avoid this, what I see is WP:CIR. O3000 (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

If research is showing MSNBC is more fair under certain circumstances than CNN, that's what the research shows. I frankly don't care whether you "believe" it or not. Your beliefs don't come before facts.

The sources are no more biased than those used elsewhere on this page, indeed, even the source that's criticizing CNN for its attempts to be impartial. I'm also not citing Project Veritas, I'm citing Fox, who's reporting on them. Once again, your dislike of PV doesn't let you simply delete reliable sources reporting facts. Frankly, check your own competence. Edit5001 (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I like. Fox just regurgitated PV. PV has a long history of falsifying videos. These are not "facts". They are fake news. O3000 (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not God and don't get to decide, without a shred of evidence, whether what reliable sources report is "fake news" or not. Edit5001 (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you strike your comment that I think I'm god. WP:PA Then read the Project Veritas article. O3000 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Edit5001 here, the organizations discussed herein, Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, equally have notable biases that should be placed in the lead, and the controversy section of this page in particular should include various widely reported incidences, such as the firing of an executive editor and the resignation of 3 journalists for failing to follow CNN's own editorial standards[1]. When edited in, this is removed from the controversy section of this article, but Fox News has multiple claims in the lead that are represented by commentary and partisan organizations such as Media Matters. We won't allow this and we will continue to challenge until these are corrected. Curivity (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with User:Edit5001 Let us get this straight so I understand what you are saying. Do you agree with him that Project Veritas, famous for creating deceptively edited videos, is RS? Do you agree with him that I think I am god? I fail to see how you have shown this to be a "controversy". How many people do you think have been fired by a 39 year old company with 4,000 employees? And for the nth time, WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Wiki bias

I've noticed you list FOX news as a "conservative" organization. But you should also list CNN as liberal or leftist as they almost never report President Trumps many accomplishments, but always negatives even when unsubstantiated. I watch both networks and have to say FOX is more balanced. Truthman1959 (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Our opinions are not relevant. What matters is what reliable sources report. O3000 (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Truthman1959, facts have a well-known liberal bias. Guy (help!) 10:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from engaging in partisan political demagoguery as per WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE. - 92.206.142.146 (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTAFORUM - Mvbaron (talk) 21:34, 1 January 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)

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"."
— [2]

• 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[3] and WP[4] 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.

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)

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)
• Keep the first half it’s impossible for something to be too bipartisan and bipartisan is a good thing and not a bad thing Dq209 (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Keep: ""The network is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic,..... The rest is preposterous.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020

I suggest changing the following: FROM: "CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based pay television channel owned by …" TO: "CNN (Cable News Network) is an left leaning American news-based pay television channel owned by …" 68.234.80.5 (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. O3000 (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2020

CNN is a far left news and opinion network (just as One America News is a far right news and opinion network) 174.16.164.44 (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done This has been discussed to death. O3000 (talk) 14:44, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2020

Rant O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change this bullshit radical left wing wiki lies site. You call OAN a right wing network that promotes conspiracy theories, which is true, however nothing in the CNN page about it being a left wing news station and with Zucker even being on tape saying to negatively cover Trump. For once, change your biased ways and stop supporting the left over the right. Call it like it is! Be honorable for once. In a time where honor in reporting facts has come 2nd to supporting one's political agenda, you can stand up for what is right and truthful. Stop swaying people for political bias. Stop cherry picking what info you will allow by first checking if it supports your left wing views. That isn't honorable. That isn't what anything that claims to be a supporter of facts should be. Be Better! It's easy to silence people who are on the right and make them look less than people who lean left. CNN is surely a left wing media outlet and that is ok. Just stop lying by saying it is not partisan. It leans left and most of the on air personalities push a left wing agenda. CNN is not the CNN of old and you should be honest in what it is. This is not communism where you have the key so you will let in whatever fits your narrative and blocks what does not. You shouldn't call FOX News and OAN right wing networks while calling a left wind network as having no politics in their reporting. Can someone stand up for the right thing and promote news and facts honestly instead of silencing what you want because it doesn't fit your beliefs. This is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia should stand for. Stand up for delivering facts regardless of politics and put away your liberal bias to make sure we don't become a communist state by controlling what others read. Be Better! 74.96.208.18 (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)  Not done The above is just a "rant", with no supporting sources. Wikipedia is neutral. David J Johnson (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Why is CNN not described as a "far left network"? One America News is described as a "Far right network" (even though it is a real news channel unlike CNN which is an extension of the democratic party. 108.45.158.190 (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done We go by what reliable sources say, not by odd opinions. O3000 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Every single media bias rating site lists CNN as left leaning or liberal, and it's widely accepted that their coverage leans much more left than right in American politics. This should be mentioned on the page.

First, please sign any "contribution" you may make. Whilst I disagree with your view, you should supply reliable, secondary, sources for any change, not just random opinions. David J Johnson (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2020

Change "CNN (Cable News Network) is an American news-based pay television channel owned by CNN Worldwide" to "CNN (Cable News Network) is a liberal American news-based pay television channel owned by CNN Worldwide". Add the word liberal to further define the news agency.

One source for this change can be found at this media bias chart website. https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/?v=402f03a963ba Senatorsanchez (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Jamietw (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2020

i want to change the intro a little bit after working their for a few months Aaronb123 (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

This isn't gonna make me popular, but I think it's only fair...

Ok. First, to make things clear, I'm not paid by, working for, or affiliated with Fox News, Breitbart News, or any other right-leaning news outlet. Recently, I read the AllSides report and saw that CNN was classified as left-leaning. I don't usually check CNN or Fox, just because I prefer the Wikipedia Portal:Current Events page. I decided to go on CNN, and I saw that most of the content was anti-Trump. Of course when I went on Fox, it was pro-Trump. On the Fox News article on Wikipedia, it states, "...is a conservative news...". I think that it's only fair that CNN gets the same. I'm proposing, "...is a liberal news..." just to make things fair. It's okay if this isn't accepted by the community, I'm just throwing out suggestions. Here's the AllSides report: https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings

Thanoscar21 (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do some research first. ɱ (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've listed a few sources:

https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/

https://www.businessinsider.com/most-biased-news-outlets-in-america-cnn-fox-nytimes-2018-8#6-mother-jones-22-6

Respectfully, Thanoscar21 (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• The first two sites are interesting and can be examined on talk pages, but are not to be used as sources in articles. The third is a poll, which is not a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your time! Thanoscar21 (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanoscar21, I think you are on to something. I am a frequent reader but only occasional editor on Wikipedia, these days I have a lot more going on in the real world. I recently noticed the addition of the "conservative" label on the Fox News page, and thought it was out of place. After viewing the talk page there, it seems as though I would be in the minority and attempting to remove it would get me nowhere. I came to CNN to check on the opening of this page, as they are widely viewed (perhaps thanks and cynically to the current president) as a liberal news source; the antithesis of Fox. I am in agreement that these pages should be treated equally, and I am currently looking for sources that fall in line with Wikipedia's standards to cite this, and make the pages more balanced. I don't think anyone would argue, after five minutes of watching either network, of their respective biases. I do think it is unfair to highlight one (in the first sentence) and not the other. I will report back if I am able to track down any good sources to confirm this and will edit the article accordingly. Cheers! – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You have been here long enough to understand WP:OTHERCONTENT. And no, one is clearly not the antithesis of the other. Five minutes of personal observation tells you nothing. And 1,000 minutes still makes it WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed my point, and perhaps you should read the non-binding essay you linked to more thoroughly. Actually, I'll just go ahead and quote it to you: an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." If you care to re-read my comment, I was stating that I was going to search out reliable sources as per Wikipedia policy, and I do not see a legitimate reason why if those sources were found I could not include those sources in an edit of an article. If you care to point me in the direction of a Wikipedia policy that is being violated by attempting to seek reliable sources and include them in an edit of a Wikipedia article, I am all ears. – Alex43223 ^{T | C | E} 01:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I did not miss anything. One can compare articles for style and organization. But, not in the manner that you have brought up. CNN and Fox are different organizations. There is no more reason to suggest their articles should sound alike than articles on Pol Pot and Roosevelt or Roosevelt on Pol Pot. No one is stopping you from looking at resources. But, if you look at the archives, this has been discussed ad infinitum. O3000 (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2020 (UTC)