Talk:CNN

Lead

Wikipedia needs to have a few lines in the lead about the left wing bias (like Wikipedia has with the Fox News page), something like "CNN has been the subject of allegations of liberal bias. Writer Eric Alterman has noted that many critics on the left view CNN is more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics." This Quote is taken from the Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

It is beyond serious dispute that CNN essentially tilts toward the Left. The article should deal with this. I won't make any change because any change would instantly be reversed by one of the many Left-leaning contributors to Wikipedia. That aside, the article should somehow address CNN's tilt to the Left. That is, if Wikipedia wants it to be a serious, neutral article.

Otherwise it will seem like Wikipedia is taking sides in politics, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinablue888 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN article and other news agency references

Hi Xenophrenic. I and others (see the CNN talk archives) would like to keep this article free of references of other news agencies. You reverted a removal of such a reference, justifying this change as wording from the supporting citation. First, this should be a direct quote in double parenthesis if you truly wish justify inclusion based on that alone. Second, though most importantly, it is irrelevant whether ten other agencies were specifically 'worded' in the citation as this article is on CNN, not Fox, or MSNBC or whoever else may be mentioned in the citation.

This is a slippery slope that has, after some battles, already been fought back and won. This article is as neutral as one could hope to expect considering the topic. If we allow all of these other news agency references to creep in again, I fear it will turn back into the CNN vs Fox vs MSNBC battleground that it previously was (and that the Fox News Wikipedia article sadly still is). I will remove the reference in 24 hours if I do not hear back from you either on your talk page or in the CNN talk page. I know you would like to keep the conversations on your personal talk page, but the CNN talk page already has a section and I'd like others to see it so that there can be consensus. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Daydreamer302000. Thank you for informing me of what you and some others would like. As editors here, however, we must instead abide by what Wikipedia requires (see the Wikipedia policies). That includes conveying what cited reliable sources have conveyed (and no, a direct quote is in no way warranted here). When adding negative or "controversial" information, care must be taken to include context and any relevant explanatory information, regardless of what we "would like" -- in this instance, that CNN was not alone in performing an allegedly controversial action.

I share your concern about the unnecessary introduction of references to competing news agencies (see my edit here as an example), but that doesn't mean we must purge every mention; especially when to do so would result in disinformation. One does not read that ABC Baseball team won the 2012 World Series by beating XYZ Baseball team, and then argue that XYZ shouldn't be mentioned because this is the ABC article. As an aside, discussions about article edits should always be conducted on the article Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading the cited source (and related additional sources), the content under discussion doesn't appear to rise to the level of "controversy". The various news agencies were reporting live from the courthouse as the lengthy decision was being read, and they corrected their premature misunderstanding of the ruling within minutes -- routine stuff during breaking news stories. As such, I've removed the content from the "controversy" section. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rating Section removal

I have removed this section. For one thing, any section like this should focus on the entire history of CNN's ratings from beginning to a rather comprehensive and general present time. As it was, this section merely focused on a couple of recent months. Such information is very difficult to maintain, if not impossible, and should be avoided in an encyclopedic article unless the article itself is of the nature where such changes are notable on their own merit (a few months ratings, even if they a relatively important to the company, is probably not material fit for an encyclopedia). Another issue is that the section only focused on what might be construed as 'negative' news regarding CNN's ratings. There is hardly any doubt that in CNN's history, it has had significantly good ratings periods and significantly bad periods. A neutral balanced approach to this would delve into this and explain it objectively. This lack of treatment leads me to believe that this was a decidedly non-neutral inclusion into this article, probably by someone who is not a big fan of the network (just so we are clear, I'm not either. But I am a big fan of neutrality on Wikipedia).

I would ask that anyone defending or supporting this change respond here before reverting, or attempting a proper treatment of this topic, so there can be consensus and further discussion on whether such a section even belongs on Wikipedia. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

In section 8: Controversy, line 4, faring is misspelled twice ("fairing") Baldtzu (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Baldtzu (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a company, shouldn't we list executives like other Wiki articles?

Most wiki articles that are based on a company have information about who the executives are. There is a list of anchors and shows, but nothing about the suits, which is important. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is really about the news network. Not the company that owns the news network. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)