Jump to content

Talk:CNN: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 164: Line 164:


:So...update it to the 2021 numbers. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
:So...update it to the 2021 numbers. [[User:ValarianB|ValarianB]] ([[User talk:ValarianB|talk]]) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
::....You seem to forget that the article is semi protected. Also, I am not good at edits so that is why this has been brought up for discussion. This edit is here until an good wiki editor can implement the change.[[Special:Contributions/12.227.66.34|12.227.66.34]] ([[User talk:12.227.66.34|talk]]) 20:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:18, 6 July 2021

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).

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. 

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.[2] 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]
Honestly, I think even you'd agree silently that CNN leans left from its coverage of right-leaning individuals and parties over the last few years. I am ashamed that people like you don't want to accept the truth. People look up to Wikipedia for the truth and not for your opinions. Wikipedia acclaim the Washington Post as a reliable source and hence what it says is reliable. Why don't you permit that from being published?! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Pew/WaPo story refers to audiences, not the sources themselves. I suggest you cease making unfounded assertions about me.soibangla (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The Pew/WaPo story refers..."
Exactly. That's exactly what my edit says as well. You have to learn to read what the edit was. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As it has been stated before; nobody cares. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", so it makes sense to note the outliers like Fox News or OANN. CNN, WPost, etc...are (and sorry if this bursts bubbles) normal. We don't need to qualify normal with descriptors. ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fox News is reportedly way less rightist than OANN. It's interesting how you equated the two of them. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does the consensus of the editors matter more than the facts?

The fact is that Pew and WaPo state the liberal inclination of the audience of CNN. The editors' consensus is that the readers of the article should not be made aware of this fact. This is not objective editing! Please remove your own biases when editing articles on Wikipedia! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are criticizing others' reading skills above, but you have yet to address the actual reasons for being removed. Just repeating "stop censoring Important Facts!" isn't persuasive because a fact being true isn't the only criterion for including in an article. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It actually is an important fact since there is not a single conservative news channel that is not mentioned to be so while several left-leaning and leftist ones are not mentioned to be so. It is very important and there is all the more reason to make the public aware of the same. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite reliable sources characterizing CNN, rather than its audience, as liberal. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CNN audience and CNN are not the same thing. And also, just because something isn't right-wing doesn't make it necessarily left leaning. There's the middle ground that's based on facts and science. For example, telling people COVID is real doesn't make you liberal, simply because it's against what some right wing conspirators believe. It's just facts. So, you need something more solid to support your argument. — Starforce13 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't asked for or made an edit that says CNN is liberal. I myself understand the values of being centrist and am not an ultra-rightist myself. But, why are the other editors so adamant that we shouldn't mention the liberal nature of the audience? In fact, when juxtaposed with the fact that CNN provides a balance (or a false balance, as the post says), it only gives a positive image of being more centrist to the leftist community. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The presumed audience political leaning has no relevance to the article. Otherwise, we might as well include everything that has ever been written about CNN, its audience or even staff here.— Starforce13 18:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some honesty please, and some reliable sources

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As a former fan, I was devastated at what Trump did to CNN. They played right into his hands, and turned it into a ridiculously partisan network along the lines of FOX News and MSNBC. And they haven't recovered.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ rates CNN as:

CNN Bias Rating: LEFT Factual Reporting: MIXED

Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks.

The extremely thorough and highly respected (not to mention absolutely PRECIOUS) Ad Fontes Media project (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/) rates CNN's news reporting as "skews left" and Opinion as close to "Hyper-Partisan Left"

The lesson here kids is: stick to the wire services (AFP, AP, Reuters). The US media landscape has become so bipolarized, that you simply can't trust any of these flashy corporate giants. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, nowadays the Christian Science Monitor and UPI are the least biased outlets in the US. but Outside the US you can look to France24, i24, and a host of smaller newspapers in France, Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, India, etc. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst"soibangla (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ TomReagan90 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings - CNN fallen into the same category as Alternet, HuffPo, Jacobin, Slate, Vox?! Oh how the mighty have fallen. Surely some well-intentioned billionaire could buy out CNN and transfer all their assets to NPR News, to give the USA at least one source of non-partisan TV news?... The Christian Science Monitor eh? what a world... TomReagan90 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CNN, Newsmax, and all that Apply

Hello,

I was the one that was editing without warning a couple months ago. Sorry, but I just don’t understand. Wikipedia claims to be neutral. But I think this is obviously biased. I am with @The Unique One v2.0: on this kind of stuff.

CNN is so important to Wikipedia.
CNN needs this added to be neutral viewpoint.
Newsmax is not valuable to Wikipedia.
All the entries that make Wikipedia biased.
All the entries that make Wikipedia biased.

The first pictures show CNN is way more important to Wikipedia. WHY? The second pictures show the actual articles. You say you are neutral and not supposed to have a biased view: Neutral Point of View and [Pillars]. If you were neutral you would at least mention CNN was liberal once. I don’t think you mention it at all. Whereas Newsmax is conservative, trump loving, and other stuff you put in there. I mean it is true, but again put liberal and Biden loving in CNN then. You do have a CNN Controversies page, but you made it separate, I think so its not in the main article. Either merge or put some of that in the main article to be neutral then. You also automatically say Newsmax has false accusations and conspiracy theories. This goes with all the other articles that apply. You should put liberal in Google and all those big companies. But especially these news articles. This is not okay.

Do you know it’s biased and are not listening to people because you don’t want it changed or are you just impulsive.

Who else is with me? Does this make sense? Anston06 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I said. I am totally fine if you keep out political adjectives from both CNN and Fox News. But, keeping it away from CNN and keeping it for all (show me one that isn't marked 'conservative') conservative news channels is exactly against the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality.
It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or a conservative. I myself am not a Trump-supporter; I am a morally center-rightist and fiscally center-leftist person. But that doesn't matter when you are editing stuff on Wikipedia. Things have to be fair and equal for both sides of the table. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "we" you refer to are reliable secondary sources. If you can provide such sources here to characterize CNN as liberal and Biden-supporting, by all means do so. There are seven sources characterizing Newsmax as conservative, four sources characterizing Chris Ruddy as a Trump confidant, and he has said "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of [Trump] and his policies." Is there a comparable statement by Jeff Zucker? Also, there is a notable tendency of conservative media and those who consume them to characterize "the other guys" who aren't similarly aligned to therefore be liberal, as if there cannot be a vast middle. In recent years there has been an explosion of conservative media outlets that consistently, overtly and shamelessly traffic in lies and conspiracy theories. CNN? Not so much. soibangla (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one of the best non-partisan sources you can ever get on political bias of the media: Ad Fontes Media
https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/
It accurately considers AP and Reuters to be unbiased. It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend you WP:BEBOLD and characterize CNN as "liberal" or "left-leaning" in the lead sentence with that source and see if it is challenged in WP:BRD. Let's settle this for once and for all. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. @Soibangla: I will definetely do so! Anston06 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't that happen before? I did it and folks reverted it with no discussion. I later did it in the third paragraph and faced the same outcome. I had given reliable sources, not ones like Conservopedia. And yet, it was taken down. I don't see why that won't happen again but let's hope for the best anyway. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources did you use? If they were low-quality, or just the one you cite above, removal would likely be warranted. In a case like this, I would argue that a preponderance of reliable sources would be necessary. There are seven for Newsmax. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Ad Fontes Media is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. See its entry in WP:RSP. It will be challenged and removed, leaving us right back here talking about how "Other Stuff Exists" is weak sauce for Wikipedia purposes.
Furthermore, it puts Fox News in the "hyper-partisan right" column, along with the likes of Newsmax, OAN, PragerU, and Breitbart. To say that "It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning" is a false equivalence, obvious to anyone looking at the chart, and carries an aroma of rhetorical shenanigans. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about sourcing, sourcing has never been the issue here; it is about reality. The majority of actual, legitimate media, i.e. organizations with a reputable history for fact-checking & accuracy fall to the more liberal, open and yes, left-leaning side of the political spectrum. The Wikipedia does not need to take extra steps to describe CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and others as "liberal" and similar, we already know this, as it is baseline normality in media.
Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many people, and the media outlets they consume, do not approach issues with the scientific method to arrive at conclusions. Instead, they begin with beliefs they assume as truth, and all their analysis flows from those root beliefs. And when good journalists consistently reach conclusions with the scientific method that happen to align with one political party's policy positions rather than another party's policy positions, they are perceived by some as "liberal." Many people appear to have not been paying attention when the scientific method began to be taught to them in — what, 4th grade? soibangla (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Can I add an edit saying that CNN is a liberal news network channel because other news channels as fox news etc. are labeled conservative channels except for the ones that are liberal. CB30303 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you may not. To repeat what I stated in an earlier discussion on the same subject, Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You sure can — if you have reliable sources saying they are. soibangla (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing has never really been the issue here. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Mr. CB30303, you created your account and then 3 minutes later came to make this edit request as your very first edit. Curious timing, as there is a user named @Chimichangazzz: who is trying to make the same type of edit, and is being rebuffed. What attracted to you come to this article at this moment? Is there perhaps a web forum, social media thread, etc...? ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is WP:SNOWBALL. It's been brought up so many times by the same few people and their potential sock puppets and the consensus has been clear from all the other discussion. It's time to accept the existing consensus and move on. It beats the point of consensus (and honestly, it's kind of disrespectful to other editors' time) to keep bringing up the same thing without any significant changes in the subject.— Starforce13 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and Advertising

The intro of this article is very self-aggrandizing and does not show NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads as:

"As of September 2018, CNN has 90.1 million television households as subscribers (97.7% of households with cable) in the United States.[12] In 2019, CNN ranked third in viewership among cable news networks, behind Fox News and MSNBC, averaging 972,000 viewers.[13] CNN ranks 14th among all basic cable networks.[14][15]"

I recommend that this information should be placed in a chart under a "Historical Viewership" section. Viewership and membership change constantly and a snapshot of CNNs high ratings/viewership should not define what CNN is in the intro of this page. One example of changes in viewership number is in the year 2021, CNN took a nosedive in viewership which has been notable after the presidential election of the year prior.12.227.66.34 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So...update it to the 2021 numbers. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
....You seem to forget that the article is semi protected. Also, I am not good at edits so that is why this has been brought up for discussion. This edit is here until an good wiki editor can implement the change.12.227.66.34 (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN&oldid=1032334308"