Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
rockaction

***Official*** CNN Thread - Here's Where We Go To Be Falsely Objective

Recommended Posts

I was just watching the CNN five and six o'clock hour and haven't heard objective news slanted so outrightly and so badly as I just witnessed in a long time. 

I've been out of it; is this what passes for real "journalism" these days? 

Get me off that train; I've had enough.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

man...we really need another CNN thread.

Also...if you have not heard news slanted like that, you must not have visted Fox anytime recently.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured we could consolidate all the CNN complaints into this one. I'm sympathetic to the claim, but it seems to derail every thread.  

Fox is pretty bad, but considering people think of CNN as "real" news, I'm a little more aghast at their coverage.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rockaction said:

I figured we could consolidate all the CNN complaints into this one. I'm sympathetic to the claim, but it seems to derail every thread.  

Fox is pretty bad, but considering people think of CNN as "real" news, I'm a little more aghast at their coverage.  

Wasn't there already a thread about CNN and the media?

Fox is more than pretty bad.  it has been far worse than CNN.  You are again showing some bias here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

Wasn't there already a thread about CNN and the media?

Fox is more than pretty bad.  it has been far worse than CNN.  You are again showing some bias here.

 

I'm sure there was some sort of thread about the media; I missed it.  

I'm also pretty sure that Gloria Borger's "analysis" tonight while pretending to be objective was more than I could pull off on national television without laughing out loud over the absurdity of it all.  

But who am I but a biased conservative who loves Trump?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rockaction said:

I'm sure there was some sort of thread about the media; I missed it.  

I'm also pretty sure that Gloria Borger's "analysis" tonight while pretending to be objective was more than I could pull off on national television without laughing out loud over the absurdity of it all.  

But who am I but a biased conservative who loves Trump?  

Let me know when they make up a story like Fox did about Seth Rich.

Fox might as well be state run media these days with much of their content.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sho nuff said:

Let me know when they make up a story like Fox did about Seth Rich.

Fox might as well be state run media these days with much of their content.

CNN might as well be a Latin American "resistance" group.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NREC34 said:

Cronkite was the worst

I wholeheartedly agree. He was a tendentious pedant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rockaction said:

I was just watching the CNN five and six o'clock hour and haven't heard objective news slanted so outrightly and so badly as I just witnessed in a long time. 

I've been out of it; is this what passes for real "journalism" these days? 

Get me off that train; I've had enough.  

I watched it too. And I strongly disagree. 

They did nothing but report the facts. Sometimes the facts aren't balanced. In this case (as in many cases over the last year) the facts make President Trump out to be an ignorant, lying bigot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think CNN has in the past tried to be too generous to Trump with the goal of trying to be balanced. That is a dumb goal. Report the facts and let the chips fall where they may. That's what they did tonight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I watched it too. And I strongly disagree. 

They did nothing but report the facts. Sometimes the facts aren't balanced. In this case (as in many cases over the last year) the facts make President Trump out to be an ignorant, lying bigot. 

You got facts from that two-hour-long op-ed? Kudos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN has it right but man, take a breath of air and talk about something else once in a while. I used to be all Fox except for Hannity. Now the only hosts I can listen to are Wallace and Smith. If all they can do on Fox is blow the "Trump"et blast supporting this President who is so unpopular you are are going to lose the ratings game. MSNBC has actually been winning some prime time viewing. Back in the day, (3 years ago) that was unheard of

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What, specifically, was said that was pure opinion and not fact? 

The entire graphic was Trump's "Off-The-Rails Press Conference." 

lf that's not an op-ed in five words, I'm not sure of what is. You might agree, tim, but that's not a fact.

CNN: We're going to cover "Trump's Completely Psychotic, Anti-Holistic, SuperCaliFragilisticespialadcious Policy Proposals!" Now! At five!   

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

The entire graphic was Trump's "Off-The-Rails Press Conference." 

lf that's not an op-ed in five words, I'm not sure of what is. You might agree, tim, but that's not a fact.  

I don't know how else one could honestly define it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I don't know how else one could honestly define it. 

If it were fact base, it would be Trump's Press Conference.  Off the Rails is an opinion, even though it may be the majority opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don't know how else one could honestly define it. 

You're never writing non-fiction for The New Yorker, that's for sure. 

Seriously, that's an op-ed right on the screen.  

Edited by rockaction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, rockaction said:

I was just watching the CNN five and six o'clock hour and haven't heard objective news slanted so outrightly and so badly as I just witnessed in a long time. 

I've been out of it; is this what passes for real "journalism" these days? 

Get me off that train; I've had enough.  

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

If it were fact base, it would be Trump's Press Conference.  Off the Rails is an opinion, even though it may be the majority opinion. 

That's fine. I think it's a pretty weak example of rockaction's overall argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What standard should be applied before they can use a description like "off the rails"?  I think this is more complicated than either rockaction/jon_mx or timschochet is describing.  The reason the press conference was so newsworthy was because of what Trump said.  Just saying "Trump had a press conference" takes the informative aspect out of coverage.

ETA:  I should say that I often am frustrated by CNN and certainly don't think it's anywhere close to perfect.

 

Edited by fatguyinalittlecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, rockaction said:

The entire graphic was Trump's "Off-The-Rails Press Conference." 

lf that's not an op-ed in five words, I'm not sure of what is. You might agree, tim, but that's not a fact.

CNN: We're going to cover "Trump's Completely Psychotic, Anti-Holistic, SuperCaliFragilisticespialadcious Policy Proposals!" Now! At five!   

Um, saying that white supremacists who were carrying torches and chanting Nazi and anti-Semitic slogans were "some very fine people" qualifies as Off-The-Rails. What other president has had good things to say about Neo-Nazis?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fatguyinalittlecoat said:

What standard should be applied before they can use a description like "off the rails"?  I think this is more complicated than either rockaction/jon_mx or timschochet is describing.  The reason the press conference was so newsworthy was because of what Trump said.  Just saying "Trump had a press conference" takes the informative aspect out of coverage.

Trump's Unorthodox Press Conference

Trump's Unorthodox Press Conference Confuses Advisors, Journalists

Trump's Press Conference Atypical By Precedent

Trump's Press Conference Surprises 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Coeur de Lion said:

If you're trying to get fact-based unbiased political news from any American cable television channel, then you're doing it wrong.

CNN used to be somewhat reliable. The main complaint about CNN used to be Christine Amanpour and their coverage of Israel in the Middle East, a criticism I long agreed with

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Trump's Unorthodox Press Conference

Trump's Unorthodox Press Conference Confuses Advisors, Journalists

Trump's Press Conference Atypical By Precedent

Trump's Press Conference Surprises 

These are good but they convey less information than "off the rails." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rock you know the score by now. It's on the viewer to watch/get all sources to be objective. Under Obama if he had some controversy I'd check out MSNBC to see how they were handling it. With Trump (& with him he has a crisis per week or even weekend) turn on Fox to see what they're *not talking about. At least with CNN you have a decent shot of finding out what's going on. 

Btw IMO CNN has had its very pro Trump moments. He was a guest columnist on their site. They featured his campaign rallies live. They constantly featured the slavish Jeff Lord. They fired *three professional journalists for getting *one fact wrong about Scaramucci.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to be clear, it wasn't just the "Off-The-Rails" infographic, it was things like Claudia Borger's "analysis." That's fine if you have Paul Begala and Van Jones and others on television to give their spiel and take; that's cable news. But to denote or designate Claudia Borger as your in-house "analyst" while she herself flies -- pardon me -- completely off-the-rails is another thing entirely.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coeur de Lion said:

If you're trying to get fact-based unbiased political news from any American cable television channel, then you're doing it wrong.

Frankly, I think lack of bias is impossible. But there is a difference between that and pure opinion. The most famous broadcast journalist ever, Edward R. Murrow, certainly had a clear bias- in favor of the British against the Nazis, opposed to Joe McCarthy, etc. Yet he reported the facts. That's what's important. If CNN was reporting "fake news" as Trump accuses them constantly, I could see rockaction's point. But there is no evidence that they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I think CNN would acknowledge it's a loaded term but they believed it was warranted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:

CNN used to be somewhat reliable. The main complaint about CNN used to be Christine Amanpour and their coverage of Israel in the Middle East, a criticism I long agreed with

NPR is typically fairly decent. I try to read both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal to get solid takes on events from different angles. Cable "news" should largely be viewed as simple entertainment. It is ironic, though, that you are attacking CNN while ignoring the fact that Fox News is far more egregious.

Edited by Coeur de Lion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, rockaction said:

And to be clear, it wasn't just the "Off-The-Rails" infographic, it was things like Claudia Borger's "analysis." That's fine if you have Paul Begala and Van Jones and others on television to give their spiel and take; that's cable news. But to denote or designate Claudia Borger as your in-house "analyst" while she herself flies -- pardon me -- completely off-the-rails is another thing entirely.  

Again, can you be more specific? What did Borger say that you found to be unfair or based more on opinion than fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

And to be clear, it wasn't just the "Off-The-Rails" infographic, it was things like Claudia Borger's "analysis." That's fine if you have Paul Begala and Van Jones and others on television to give their spiel and take; that's cable news. But to denote or designate Claudia Borger as your in-house "analyst" while she herself flies -- pardon me -- completely off-the-rails is another thing entirely.  

It's Gloria.  I'm not really a fan either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say the Chyron team is a little out of control at times, it's happened more than once. If the press conference is being run live it should just say 'Trump holds press conference' but if they switch to a commentator who says 'Trump went off the rails' really it is ok to have that as a banner to clue the viewer in to the discussion point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Coeur de Lion said:

NPR is typically fairly decent. I try to read both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal to get solid takes on events from different angles. Cable "news" should largely be viewed as simple entertainment. It is ironic, though, that you are attacking CNN while ignoring the fact that Fix News is far more egregious.

Fox News and MSNBC are usually juxtaposed against each other as both right-wing and left-wing opinion outlets as opposed to cable news. CNN traditionally positioned itself in the center, which is why their recent spate of programming was so astonishing.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, rockaction said:

CNN used to be somewhat reliable. The main complaint about CNN used to be Christine Amanpour and their coverage of Israel in the Middle East, a criticism I long agreed with

The investigative folks do decent work (Andrew Kaczynski was a good hire), but most of their on-air stuff and their editorial decisions are just awful. They cover domestic politics like it's sports, concerning themselves more with style and who is "scoring points" than with substance. And they've definitely taken on more than a little Nancy Grace in recent years too, seeking out odd, often tragic stories to exploit in a ratings grab. In my (admittedly limited) experience the other 24/7 news stations aren't much better.

With so many options these days both for getting your news and for television entertainment I honestly don't understand why people watch those networks.

Edited by TobiasFunke
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

Again, can you be more specific? What did Borger say that you found to be unfair or based more on opinion than fact?

tim, if I could get a transcript I'm sure it would back me up. It was a verbally sneering op-ed about Republicans, Trump, and control over the House, Senate, and Presidency, striking in its stridency.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SaintsInDome2006 said:

If the press conference is being run live it should just say 'Trump holds press conference'

Prior to Trump I think I would agree with you.  With Trump I couldn't disagree more.  When he lies at a Press Conference, the Chyron should say "Trump lies about X."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

tim, if I could get a transcript I'm sure it would back me up. It was a verbally sneering op-ed about Republicans, Trump, and control over the House, Senate, and Presidency, striking in its stridency.  

To be fair, I didn't hear everything she said as that's when I had to leave the room. But I did hear her remarks specifically about Trump, and I thought they were pretty fair.

But she is a political analyst, called on to offer opinions based on what has already been reported. Once she appears on the screen, the "news portion" of the show has been completed up to that point, and now a discussion begins regarding it's impact. That's why she is always part of a larger panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TobiasFunke said:

The investigative folks do decent work (Andrew Kaczynski was a good hire), but most of their on-air stuff and their editorial decisions are just awful. They cover domestic politics like it's sports, concerning themselves more with style and who is "scoring points" than with substance. And they've definitely taken on more than a little Nancy Grace in recent years too, seeking out odd, often tragic stories to exploit in a ratings grab. In my (admittedly limited) experience the other 24/7 news stations aren't much better.

With so many options these days both for getting your news and for television entertainment I honestly don't understand why people watch those networks.

I agree. 

My news is now culled from an amalgamation of various print sources online. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

Fox News and MSNBC are usually juxtaposed against each other as both right-wing and left-wing opinion outlets as opposed to cable news. CNN traditionally positioned itself in the center, which is why their recent spate of programming was so astonishing.  

CNN does fall somewhere in the middle of Fox News and MSNBC. Saying that Trump's press conference (or pretty much anything that he does) was "off the rails" isn't liberal bias. Everything about Trump multiple standard deviations outside the norm in American politics. If anything, most of the mainstream media has handled him with kid gloves compared to past politicians -- treating him as an actual serious candidate and giving him tons of air time, giving equal time to Hillary's emails, not brutally calling him out on his constant blatant lies and general ignorance, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.