Talk:CNN

Accreditation

Should we start listing news media accreditation information on Wikipedia pages? With all the hoopla over fake news these days, I think people should know which are actually accredited and which are not. It's a fairly straight forward process. Here's a link: http://ask.metafilter.com/65063/What-counts-as-an-accredited-news-publication — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seankinn (talk • contribs) 03:42, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN Anchors Fake a Satellite Interview in the Same Parking Lot

www.infowarscom/cnn-anchors-pretend-theyre-having-a-satellite-interview-even-though-theyre-in-the-same-parking-lot/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TyDHiITq1M Nancy Grace and Ashleigh Banfield keep a straight face , only standing within 50 feet of each other while faking a satellite interview !

Controversies section

I've tried to move all the controversies about discrete, specific events that don't seem to have had much of a shelf-life after the initial news cycle to the CNN controversies page, since the controversy section here was getting huge and unwieldy. Generally, I think it would be best to summarize broad types of controversies or ways in which CNN is controversial here (with perhaps the most noteworthy or high-profile examples), and move individual events outside of that to the subpage. The first few paragraphs (which summarize entire eras of CNN's reporting, often with academic sources that can provide a decent summary) seems more useful than a blow-by-blow that devotes a paragraph to every individual news cycle where CNN itself is in the news. --Aquillion (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for your edit. But it seems that you did not add the specific controversies about people suing/being fired/quitting to the main article about controversies? At least I could not find it in its history. Is that it or am I missing something? I think a mention of the Sanders controversy and the debate/WikiLeaks one falls under the same category of the initial paragraph that was kept (about the 2007 election). A summary about CNN election controversies would perhaps be ideal? Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Aquillion here. This is a general level article and most of this is NPOV fluff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikileaks scandal not even mentioned?!

As a first time reader of this page, I am astonished that wikileaks release of documentation of close contact and collusion between the DNC and CNN has not been mentioned in the article at all or perhaps removed quickly by a partisan if it has. This is well documented and widely reported.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Need I continue? Cpsoper (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has been moved to the subpage. Diffs: [7] [8]. I haven't checked if the removed parts were in fact added to the subpage. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The controversies section here attempts to give a broad overview while specific controversies are listed on the sub page (linked from the section on this page). Cpsoper should check that page out before further comment. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, many commentators regard as damaging evidence of major collusion between the network and senior party officials, in for example preparing a question for the presidential debates beforehand. It surprises me that this is entirely relegated to a subpage. The contrast with other pages describing the biases of other media organisations is distinctively stark. For an ordinary reader to remain uninformed even of a precis of these matters on the main page appears selectively scotomatous. Cpsoper (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Covering it on this page is WP:UNDUE, since it gives it more weight than the numerous other controversies on the CNN controversies page - many of which got similar levels of coverage at their height. Given the prominence of CNN and the relative amounts of coverage it has gotten over the years (which makes it infeasible to cover ever controversy here as we could for a smaller organization), I feel we're better off summarizing the core long-term controversies over the network as a whole (eg. sustained accusations of bias, stuff we have lots of sources for covering a long period of time) rather than trying to touch on every individual event, controversy, or criticism (which would be, as the controversies page shows, too much to fit here.) I'm not convinced that that particular event is high-profile enough relative to their overall history to be worth giving it a unique highlight. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This has received ample coverage by The Washington Post [9][10][11] with a headline calling the scandal "journalistically horrifying", as well as by The New York Times [12], The Wall Street Journal [13], The Guardian [14], LA Times [15], Politico [16], Time [17], FOX [18], NY Post [19], Yahoo! [20], ABC news [21]... It also received international attention: Le Monde [22], El País [23], Deutsche Welle [24], O Estado de S. Paulo [25], etc. Snopes also ran a piece on it [26]. Perhaps a shorter mention would be satisfactory? We currently mention the conflict with the Trump administration, and as I've mentioned in the edit summary where I re-introduced the segment there should be some context to that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been over a month since I responded to the revert. Since I was not contested I have added it back. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate to me not to cover wikileaks here, it's repeatedly cited in references above as a serious indication of a journalistic flaw. Cpsoper (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Donna Brazile stuff belongs in the article on Brazile. Here it's just UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that with the sources provided above... If that doesn't show due weight, what does? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Brazile, it's simply that that belongs in her article. Are there STILL sources written about CNN and Brazile today? No. It's old news. It's outdated recentism. So yeah, UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

About Brazile maybe it belongs there also. The sources are clearly discussing CNN as well, please read them. About undo, you have got to be kidding. By that logic almost the entirety of this encyclopedia should be wiped. The thing is this isn't a news website, it's an encyclopedia, it doesn't report only on things that are currently in the news. The event in question has received the widest possible coverage by the most reputable possible sources, claiming undue solely because of the sources is ludicrous. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the point. The Brazile story got coverage when it happened. Then no more. That shows this is clearly UNDUE. With regard to the newer stuff *maybe* the resignation is significant enough, but the rest is junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead additions

Since this has now gone back and forth and I have tried numerous times to get them to use the talk page I'll start one instead. My feelings on the addition [27] can be found on my talk page. Where at least an initial attempt to talk about it was made (even if that was not really the proper place for it). I will copy it from there to here since my thoughts on the matter still stand.

Unfortunately, the discussion on President Trump's "feelings" towards CNN has been discussed numerous times. The President is not a reliable source by our definition of the phrase and his personal animus towards the media should be taken with a grain of salt. Leads are summaries of what is in the article. If you want to include that you can discuss it on the talk page and put it in an appropriate section. Then the lead can summarize that. Since you brought up Fox News there is an entire, large, well referenced section on bias in the main body of the article. The lead then summaries that. That is how the flow of content works on Wikipedia. Previous consensus has also landed on keeping such things, for the most part, on CNN controversies. There is already a section there regarding the retraction story.

As for your actual edit there was some problems with the references. The New York Times article does not verify the content. It does not say that CNN is bias or that there is public skepticism. The Washington Post article is from their blog section. Blogs aren't considered reliable. And I'm not even going to touch The Blaze. Just like I wouldn't trust what MSNBC says about Fox News.

The second part of your edit could also fit in the main controversies article. The main article is for major things regarding the network. If they lose the court battle that could be discussed but people and organizations get sued all the time. Being sued is not a major incident.

--Majora (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda publication. Why haven't you deleted the criticism and bias summary in the Fox News article? Yet you manage to continually delete the same exact thing in the CNN article. The CNN bias is well sourced on the Scaramucci story, the Comey story, the Bonifield story, and the older Crowley-Romney debate and Benghazi-Rand Paul debacle are all covered among MANY other bias incidents and controversies in the CNN article. WP:Leads says controversies should be included in the lead. That's all I was doing in good faith. Also the public skepticism of CNN was mentioned in the Yahoo-Newsweek piece. Bottom line, an encyclopedia does not have one standard for CNN and another for FOX News. Either summarize criticisms, controversies and bias in BOTH leads or erase them BOTH. MY VOTE IS KEEP BOTH summaries.Aceruss (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Majora. The controversy section is quite small considering the 37 year history of the network. And, I question the James O'Keefe paragraph considering his history. I don’t see how this can be taken as a legitimate controversy involving anything that CNN has done and believe it should be removed. O'Keefe is certainly not an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia will also not be a proxy for the President's war with the media. As for the Fox News article, the correct location for that would be Talk:Fox News. Each article is its own microcosm and equating what is on one with what you want to put on another is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an invalid argument primarily used in deletion discussions but still invalid elsewhere). Any discussion about Fox News is off topic for this talk page.

As for your actual addition. Numerous times, Wikipedia editors have determined that using obviously partisan sources does not meet the standard for exceptional claims. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We can discuss an alternative that would meet standards and would probably be accepted by the community (although I don't want to speak for anyone else) but continually trying to ram something in will only result in multiple problems down the road. --Majora (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

But wikipedia will be a proxy for the MSM war against the president? Nice double standards. DerElektriker (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support some discussion of this in the lede, but the version used in the recent edit war is of too low a quality. I would recommend making improvements to the body of the article before re-attempting to add this to the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)