Jump to content

Talk:CNN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skapunkskatedude (talk | contribs) at 02:24, 29 January 2021. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Should we add CNN's controversies to this article?

I feel like since the controversies of other news channels/publications are connected to their respective articles, we should do that to this article. Chimichangazzz (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Chimichangazzz[reply]

There was no consensus to remove this section in the first place, not even a discussion. After two reverts of this were reverted, somehow a consensus is now required to re-include this? Seriously @Objective3000? Mellk (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to reintroduce a controversy section. The bias of the articles on this website are incredible. Fox News’s article is filled with multiple sections detailing its controversies whereas this article has none. The article CNN controversies isn’t even linked here anymore, most likely to reduce visibility. Sanger is 100% correct in his feelings about this website. CatcherStorm talk 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I invite you to show us what you want to add before you add it, because the article CNN is currently subject to discretionary sanctions. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Fox News article — WP:WHATABOUTX.--Renat (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally suggest with the seemingly simplest and most logical answer to your question and say just add the CNN controversies page either linked or in full section - but I just read through it. It's absolutely littered with things like " in 2011 CNN anchor on this date burned a Republican with a mildly aggressive joke." Or "in 201 Trump made a false, completely unfounded claim that has definitely been proven to be a 100% made up CONSPIRACY THEORY fact checked by independent upstanding organizations who have no proven connection to CNN like WaPo or Politifact."

I mean seriously guys. Come on. You even still have claims in these articles that the Russian collusion hoax was still legitimate. Actually, as of today President Trump has fully unsealed the FBI investigations that provably show that the Steele Dossier was in fact a collusion by the Obama admin and Hillary Clinton to take the public's attention off of her deleted Emails scandal. It's all in the declassified investigation reports.

Other than that, we can just cut right to the chase and thru the BS "my team vs your team" nonsense and be willing to call out when your political party makes a mistake or commits a scandal. 2020 alone could fill 5 pages of CNN 'alleged scandals' - from the berating of Trump literally around the clock, to the footage obtained by Project Veritas listening to their weekly meetings where they've laid out plots to swing public perception to the side of the democrats, to constantly labeling the race riots of 2020 which caused over $2 Billion in damage and over 24 (up to 48 ) deaths, as "mostly peaceful" all while the mayhem unfolded on live tv. You could also include the sexist and racist comments by Don Lemon that falsely claimed that white men are the most dangerous demographic in the country.

I can go into detail with a slew of additional examples in the event you are actually interested in introducing a fair and balanced reporting of the party with who's public declarations most align with the staff of this and the other major big tech and information gathering websites and even the ones with opinions that yourselves and the other sites despise. I for one would be interested in the complete picture for once, which for the past 5 years has been brutally obstructed by biasness and partisanship.

Thanks. I cautiously and perhaps naively look forward to an effort to eliminate the gross imbalances being displayed. Yashamaga (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notaforum aka keep the ranting to a miniumum to maximize productivity. With that out of the way, there should be consistency in how similar articles are presented to readers. Msnbc, fox news and cnn have separate controversy articles yet only one does not retain an article section, instead hiding it as a link in a Trump sub-section. Perhaps some harmonization would go a long way to reducing perceived bias. Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

Italic text

Second to last paragraph on intro page (talks about ratings, rating from 2019, needs to be updated with current ratings. Here's a link to their current https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2020/12/02/cnn-smashes-ratings-records-in-november-has-its-most-watched-month-ever/ Bec23023 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2020 (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. Also, preferably with a secondary source. The source cited its own press release with source of the figures not declared. Neilsen? or what other organisation had made the ratings? – robertsky (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

cstiker05's additions

I reverted Cstiker05's first addition relating to bias in the lead, as it did not cite any reliable source and was based on the idea that articles on similar topics must describe them in similar (or balanced) ways. That is not the case. We write about subjects based on the reliable sourcing for that subject, not other subjects. This subsequent edit seems based on the same reasoning, adding related content likewise based on insufficient sources (see WP:RSP for entries on NY Post and Fox on politics). Not reverting due to restrictions on this page. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Headquarters

CNN officially lists the headquarters of CNN as CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia. This is being changed on this and other articles to 10 Hudson Yards, New York City. While New York does host a CNN bureau (as does Washington and numerous other cities throughout the US and the world), this is not where CNN is headquartered. I have reverted this article back to Atlanta and included three citations.

Similarly, a section was included to imply that all major broadcasting was out of New York, and that Atlanta did nothing but weekend broadcasting. This was cited, however, the citations were contradictory to the information published in the Wikipedia article. Moreover, the section appeared to only have been inserted to contradict the fact that CNN is in fact headquartered in Atlanta.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

Please add 'American Liberal' (with link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States)

to the description of CNN as a news network in the first sentence, after the first use of word 'multinational', to fit the same pattern across Wikipedia used for sites like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

Additionally, please add a paragraph regarding bias, similar to:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News' official position is that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During the presidency of Donald Trump, observers said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with scholars suggesting that the channel came to resemble a form of state TV.[26][27]"

for parity regarding the page, in order to establish a clear picture of the media outlet (just as the paragraph above provides a clear picture of Fox). Wikipedia should be an arbiter of truth above all else, which includes attempting to remove lies of omission or disingenuous description of a given topic. It is a fact that CNN sides with the political opinions held to much greater degrees (from a policy standpoint) within the Democratic party of the United States, particular those who are deemed 'progressives'. It is important that we provide clarity to all readers of Wikipedia, as it should act as an Encyclopedia providing clarity across the Internet.

Thank you for your consideration. 2601:18D:8D80:9B90:EDFF:3F63:A9D2:AD8C (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fake News

I believe Trump awarded CNN 'Fake News Award'. Why is it not listed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purpose

“ The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style".”

This award was created as a mechanism for Trump to show his displeasure at CNN, not as a function of what CNN is or what it does. There is already an article pertaining to these awards, which is sufficient in explaining the purpose of them. However, as this “award” was created as an opinion of Trump toward CNN, any further explanation of the award would belong to Trump’s page and not CNN’s as it would drastically away from Wikipedia’s purpose to list every individuals criticism of it on CNN’s page rather than the person holding the opinion. Skapunkskatedude (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN&oldid=1003461067"