Talk:CNN

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).

Controversies/Criticism section absent, POV issue?

It appears that the criticism section experienced its final death here[1]. I am aware of the singular link in the lead to the CNN controversies page. Pretty glaring to compare this article with other articles, like Washington Post or MSNBC or ESPECIALLY Fox News where a great deal, if not the majority of the article focuses on criticisms and controversy. Surely there has been enough controversy and criticism of CNN to warrant a stub-like section that includes the lead from CNN controversies, and a link to it, as I have seen commonly on other articles. Currently it appears that CNN is without DUE criticism! Perhaps we can generalize enough to actually produce a decent general section but I would endorse a simple "Criticism" section with a link for the time being. SmolBrane (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't automatically structure articles on similar topics the same way; and in general, I still hold that criticism sections are not a useful way to organize material. WP:CORG is for when the controversies are a major part of the subject; that doesn't seem to be the case here - the section you added had a smattering of individual reports (some of which, like the Nation, the Erik Wemple opinion piece, the Guardian piece, and the Huffington Post piece are WP:PRIMARY sources of criticism), not something supporting the section's statement that it has been broadly criticized or the WP:CORG requirement for secondary coverage (which, even then, only may justify it; the arguments against criticism sections still stand and have to be weighed against the sourcing and their significance.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'm not a huge fan of a large controversies section, but controversies most broadly defined has such a significant DUEness that it requires a section on this page. Controversies are a normative subject for media companies, especially large and prolific ones like CNN. The Controversies section operates as a summary of the spinoff article, and I have structured it as such. Politics/international issues/comments by their staff is a nice rough way to do it based on the structure of CNN controversies. Perhaps that could be improved. I have included “specific instances” to help readers understand that this is not typically a general criticism/controversy.

It's also important to include a controversies section as it includes the issue in the ToC which allows readers to quickly navigate to content, like the significant controversies that CNN has been involved in. It is VERY abnormal to have a 86kB article on Controversies mentioned in the lead without a related section in the body.

The Nation's article doesn't just feature criticism by the author, it mentions criticism by many people, although I am not committed to it remaining if it is that unsuitable. I have replaced the Wemple piece with a non-opinion article regarding the Brazile controversy. I have replaced both the Guardian and Huffington Post articles with non-opinion reliable sources.

Please feel free to change the structure but do not delete this section. It is DUE to remain. I also think it could be moved further down the article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a re-addition to the section. Generally, there should be consensus before challenged material is re-added to an article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There never was consensus to remove this section, please cite a diff/talk section if you can. A review of the article history indicates that the last talk page discussion before removal is on Archive 8. A controversies section first appeared on this article in 2005, it was removed for some period in 2006, was reinserted before the end of 2006 and remained in some form until removal recently in 2020. The relative significance of the issue and the lack of consensus to remove would indicate that removal constitutes the challenge. Any comments on DUEness, which seems extraordinary here? This section's absence on this article when it appears on so many other media company's articles is a severe NPOV issue that is also going unacknowledged here. SmolBrane (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better timeline of what actually happened. Aquillion deleted the section here[2]Removal was disputed here[3]Removed again[4]Disputed again[5]Removed again[6]. (Allegation of the need for consensus to include starts with this edit)

From Talk:consensus to remove acknowledged as absent[7]consensus to remove acknowledged again as absent[8]

There has been a sleight of hand here, where consensus to remove was never established, and has since been erroneously used to omit this content. SmolBrane (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for section text

CNN has received allegations of bias, and has been involved in controversies and received criticism for its coverage on international incidents and its individual hosts' and contributors' remarks.

Any further thoughts on this dispute @Aoi and Aquillion: or this alternative proposal, before I open a NPOV noticeboard discussion? I am very uninterested in listing specific incidents like it was done historically on this page; it produces too much clutter and leaves the section open-ended to be expanded. I believe this alternate proposal would be a better way to present this information. For consideration—here is a list of perennial reliable sources that are media companies that feature Controversy or Criticism sections. It is not a comprehensive list.

The Hill (newspaper), The Intercept, National Geographic, NBC News (section entitled Sexual Misconduct and NBC News), New Scientist, The New York Times, Politico, Politifact (section: Allegations of political bias), The Wall Street Journal (Section: bias in news pages), Associated Press, The Daily Telegraph. SmolBrane (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the previous recent discussions: CatcherStorm(now @LJF2019: I think???), @Mellk, RenatUK, Slywriter, Curivity, DanielRigal, Marquis de Faux, and Just plain Bill:

Omitting the following users from the ping: Chimichangazzz(blocked), Yashamaga(blocked), Edit5001(blocked), MrX(retired/inactive), JzG(on a break since May, maybe could be pinged?), Objective3000(retired). SmolBrane (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No further thoughts at the moment -- my revert was based on WP:STATUSQUO and not necessarily on any preference as to what the section should or shouldn't look like. I only ask that some rough consensus be reached on whatever the text should be before the text is added to the article to prevent an edit war. Objective3000 should probably be pinged since they seem to have sporadic recent edits, though they may or may not have comments. Also re-pinging Marquis de Faux and Just plain Bill as the technical requirements to be pinged were not fulfilled the first time around. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me... I have this page on my watch list, and have preferences set so I don't see pings. Just watching for now... Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was removed improperly on Dec 15, 2020[9], with an erroneous statement that a consensus existed to remove, which it did not. This was noted on the talk page at the time:[10]. This section existed on this page for fifteen years, so that should be the status quo that we yield to, not the dubious status quo that was established through a policy violation, disputed immediately, and disputed since. Removal of the section was disputed on Jan 16 2021[11], and again on June 27 2021[12]. I have revised my addition twice to try to accomodate objections. No substantive argument has been made to its removal given the significance of WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. Editors here so far are ignoring good faith questions, and opposing inclusion needs to address WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. Given the lack of consensus to remove this long-standing content, the section should be promptly reinstated, and its contents can be further discussed. The current state of the article suggests to readers that CNN does not have any DUE controversies and this is an NPOV problem. Readers should not be required to read the lead or the Trump presidency sections in order to find a link to controversies. There needs to be a section to comply with WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. The guidelines on space and balance also address this: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance. I will wait a couple days before taking this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. -SmolBrane (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: It appears from your silence that you do not object to my revised addition that simply links to sections on the CNN controversies page. If you still object, please explain why in the next few days, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm still flatly opposed to any section devoted to controversies or criticisms; I've made it clear that that's my fundamental objection, so I don't see how you can describe your changes as concessions if they would still produce a section devoted to them. I'm welcome to any discussions about how to include them in a neutral section, but given that it has been gone for more than a year and the article has been stable that entire time you would obviously need a consensus to restore it and I'm not seeing that. If you think there's a consensus to add the section you're suggesting, feel free to start an WP:RFC, but I am not seeing it here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe a Controversies section is neutral, given the nature of an international media corporation, and given the significant viewpoints in reliable sources, but nonetheless it appears we are at an impasse so I will start an RfC. SmolBrane (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

How about the fact that today, after a year of lying about Kyle Rittenhouse and refusing to report on items that sources that Wikipedia considers unreliable had right all along. LIKE he did NOT drive across state lines with a weapon. He picked it up from a friend in Kenosha. OR that convicted child molester started a dumpster fire, Rittenhouse used a fire extinguisher to try to put it out and that was what set the whole thing in motion. CNN has already had to pay a HUGE unannounced amount of money for defamation, and as of today they finally started correcting their lies in the hopes of avoiding paying more. I think it will be pretty easy for Rittenhouse to show they are not being forthright in this66.68.178.180 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There should be at least a factual errors section like Newsweek. Poynter gives several high profile inaccuracies compared with the trivial handshake and flag painting errors given in the Wikipedia Newsweek article. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Using the same site you used for Newsweek: Snopes. CNN wrongly accused Trump of buying children, is known for manipulating tweets and accused Spencer of questioning if Jews are people. Much more serious inaccuracies than those in the Newsweek article, bar the poor health advice to parents with young toddlers. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on Controversies

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.

---

1) Should the CNN article contain a section for Controversies? And if so, 2) should it be based on the sections already existing on the CNN controversies page as I have proposed, or something else? SmolBrane (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, instead the controversies that are due should be worked into the prose of the most fitting section, most likely the history section. The CNN controversies article should be linked in the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • ScottishFinnishRadish, working the prose into existing content is normally fine when there is very little controversy, but there's enough that we have a whole sub-article. That means other rules come into play. We should follow WP:Summary style, which requires us to leave a section, short summary, and a main link. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following that guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Having followed this discussion, and reviewing WP:Summary style, I'm convinced.
• Yes, we should have a short summary that links to the controversy article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Consistency is a virtue; there is no reason to treat CNN differently from how we treat basically every other major media outlet in the United States. Burying the material within the other sections and at the bottom of the page isn't a genuine compromise either. However, given that there is an entire article dedicated to the topic, it makes sense for the section to be brief and have a hatnote linking to the main article. Mlb96 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Other Wikipedia entries for media organizations have sections about controversies which link to main controversy pages for that organization. It is cleaner to have a separate section for controversies rather than interrupting a general recounting of CNN's history by delving into specific controversies during that recounting. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, (Summoned by bot) I've read prior discussions above, and no argument is really made except "other news source articles have one". Some of the examples given, including The Daily Telegraph, DON'T HAVE a separate dedicated list aricle, so the comparison is invalid, while others, have sections on major, historic, specific issues, not a 'generic' controversies section. Some other big news orgs, such as BBC News. don't have any 'generic' controversies section either. So, apart from being a poor argument, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, turns out to be only partly true at best. Better arguments would need to be made about WHY/HOW such a section would improve THIS article to persuade me. Of course the 'list' article should be linked to fairly prominently, but that does not appear to be disputed. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Pincrete, working the prose into existing content is normally fine when there is very little controversy, but there's enough that we have a whole sub-article. That means other rules come into play. We should follow WP:Summary style, which requires us to leave a section, short summary, and a main link. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following that guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the right argument. WP:Summary style is the right guideline, and it requires we leave a section, short summary, and a main link. The easiest way to do that is to use the lead from the sub-article. If we don't do that, then CNN controversies is a forbidden WP:POV fork. -- Valjean (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• No The trolls come and try to whup this up every few months, then the dust settles. The standalone article is fine. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ValarianB, you're missing the point. The standalone article is indeed fine. What's questioned is whether we should follow WP:Summary style and have a short section here. See my comments immediately above. We should follow the guideline. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Of course there should be. When you fork off content you leave a section heading with an appropriate summary which links to the new article with a main template or comparable template. This is non-controversial and is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. In theory, incorporating the (DUE) criticism into the article would have been fine too, and if someone has done it in their userspace I would reconsider my vote. However, the way the article is structured now makes it very hard to incorporate the criticism. Adding a short section with a summary is much easier and does not contradict any policies or guidelines, as far as I can see. Alaexis_¿question? 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• No per my arguments above; it's not a useful way to organize an article and leads to a section that serves to accumulate random criticisms stripped of context. The argument that CNN controversies serves to justify a subsection here seems to me to rather circular, ie. it's presuming that that article is not a POV fork, which only makes sense as an assumption if you take it as a given that this article (and, given that virtually none of the arguments given are specific to CNN, by extension all articles on subjects high-profile enough to support them) should by definition have criticism section, which is obviously not supported policy or practice. Likewise, the argument that such sections have accumulated elsewhere isn't convincing given that they more or less show the same problems there (and are certainly not universal, so a rationale specific to CNN is needed to introduce one here - stronger than just "we have enough material that we could organize things that way if we can reach a consensus to do so", given that there is clearly not a broad consensus supporting criticism sections as a default way to organize things anywhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, if the sub-article is an improper POV fork, the solution is to restore that content here and merge it into proper locations throughout this article as a failure to include criticisms here would be a huge NPOV violation. When that is done, it should be AfDed. Do you want to deal with that merger and then the AfD?

OTOH, if it isn't an improper POV fork, summary style says we should have a (short) section here (and that section should not accept additions as the one adding content should do it at the sub-article). BTW, ScottishFinnishRadish has just changed their mind and recommends we follow summary style. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your argument starts from the assumption of "we must have a controversy section" (ie. "if we can't have it on a POV fork then we need to have it here.") Obviously that's an absurd assertion given that controversy sections are, themselves, deeply controversial as a way to organize articles; I'm certainly not seeing anything in WP:SUMMARY supporting their use - in fact, it specifically warns that However, certain types of content can be difficult to write neutrally in independent articles, such as "Criticism of..." articles (see WP:CSECTION), and if the subject is controversial it may also increase editors' maintenance burden. Obviously that applies here and makes this an inappropriate subject to try and devote a section-and-sub-article to. Also, I note that you have now responded to nearly every person arguing "no" - please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, especially with circular arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand my position. I do not favor controversy sections at all. I'd rather we avoid them, but once they are created, they often exist because policy does not forbid them and sometimes that's the easiest way to deal with lots of such content. It can't always be integrated in an easy way. Maybe it's laziness that created the situation in the first place, and I don't know in this case. My reliance on the rule at Summary style is that it applies to any and all subjects that get split out into sub-articles, and that also includes controversies. That's where I'm coming from. If that content can be merged back into this article in the appropriate places, that would be best. The current situation is untenable as it violates Summary style. Something needs to be done. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the policy citations here. If the article fails to comply with Summary Style, it appears it will require a Neutrality tag, probably either “POV” or “Move portions from” and probably a downgrade to C-Class based on the criteria at Content assessment. Thoughts? SmolBrane (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Right now it is not compliant with the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Status right now is 6 yes and 3 no. Unless we see some substantial policy-based reasons to ignore Summary style, we need a close in favor of following Summary style.
• Note that the advice to not have controversy and criticism sections is from an essay. It's still good advice, but essays do not trump PAG. Such a section doesn't have to be titled "controversy" or "criticism", although it should describe the contents properly, and we often use such sections, with such titles, where controversy and criticism is a large topic area. When such a topic justifies its own sub-article, that is evidence it's an important enough subject for a section in the main article, per Summary style.
• By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - as nominator. SmolBrane (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

SmolBrane, would you mind making your "yes" !vote in the format used above? That way it's noticeable. Your argument in favor of Summary style would be a good reason for !voting "yes". -- Valjean (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes As per Mlb96.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is fairly standard for cable news subjects. A separate article for controversies exists and should be summarized briefly on this main article.LM2000 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2021 (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.

CNN is not nonpartisan

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.

---

CNN has displayed zero commitment to nonpartisan. It has been a mouth piece for liberals and Biden administration. It is not ashamed to publish untrue conspiracy theory when attacking former president Trump. '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.[20]' This part needs to be edited out. If not, wikipedia has lost its integrity for not providing fair and correct statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtyuy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say CNN makes efforts to be nonpartisan. postleft on mobile! 02:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow! When you try to neutralize a topic, it gets shut down on Wikipedia. Proves Wikipedia is not nonpartisan. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the close summary. Random complaints aren't constructive, reliable sources that support clear changes are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are using an unreliable Source: Snopes in the Newsweek article. Interesting. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I am? Can you show me a diff where I'm using either of those sources? I'm not even sure what you're talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I regard Poynter and Snopes as reliable sources, but obviously that's where we differ. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about Wikipedia has to use the same standards in all articles, so if Snopes is used as a reliable source in one article, it can't be counted as unreliable for another article. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a specific situation you're talking about, or is this all hypothetical? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've explained my issues very clearly in criticism section. And if you read Newsweek article you can find what I'm referring to. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As in Newsweek Wikipedia page. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And I just checked there; Snopes is listed as reliable source on Wikipedia, so no nothing I have said is hypothetical. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2021 (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.

One more letter?

This is very nitpicky, but in the picture caption of Donald Trump at a CNN interview in 2016, shouldn’t it be “Donald Trump interviews with CNN and Voice of America? Donald Trump is doing something, so shouldn’t interview be a verb? Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.116 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the word is functioning as a noun here. We could say "A Donald Trump interview" but the current phrasing is ok. SmolBrane (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

PLEASE ADD A , “Controversies,” or similar section Consider a, “Controversies,” section, or link to ethics in media. Pretty much all cable programming, be it Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or what have you is, “opinion programming,” by virtue of canted eyebrow, and delivery.

Conflict of interest: CNN made the choice not to insist that Chris Cuomo, a marquee product, take a leave of absence during his brother, the Governor’s, sex scandal.

“The next year, as Andrew Cuomo was facing an increasing number of sexual harassment accusations, Chris Cuomo recused himself from reporting on the scandal, leaving a prime-time hole in CNN’s coverage of what was turning out to be a national news story.” NYT 12/5/2021

Bauder, David (March 1, 2021). "CNN's Chris Cuomo says he 'obviously' can't cover brother". Associated Press. Retrieved March 1, 2021. 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC) 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, really. Chris did the right thing by recusing himself from that topic, hence no violation of COI. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Non partisan?

No one in their right mind thinks CNN is "non-partisan ". That sentence needs to be removed. 76.91.127.113 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)