What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

***Official*** CNN Thread - Good Calls Or Journalistic Malfeasance? You Report, You Decide (2 Viewers)

NREC34 said:
Anything that doesn't cover our dear leader like Hannity is fake news to about 30% of the population. 
Click to expand...
This is true, and very wrong. It's sad to watch that sort of mentality take root. Just as sad to see completely hostile sources passed off as news.  

 
I guess once you start with Mexico paying for a border wall to keep immigrants in, you've really got nowhere to go but down. 

But I really am trying to see the bright side here...

 
Didn't you vote that if you had to watch one network in order to win 1MM that it would be CNN over Fox or did I miss that?   

 
Because most assuredly, Islamists in Europe that have driven cars into crowds before needed Charlottesville to draw ideas from.

:X

 
rockaction said:
As Dillinger Four would say, this #### is genius.

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/347046-cnn-under-fire-for-linking-barcelona-terrorist-attack-to-charlottesville
Click to expand...
Well this was terrible. I like Blitzer but it's very possible that despite his very mannered, newsy style of delivery he's not that smart. It was a dumb comment. Otoh there is a lot of dumb stuff said on news tv, we'd probably have an hour of clips if we pulled every stupid thing said on all the news channels over the course of a day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Hannity/Don Jr "interview" was the worst insult to journalism I've ever seen.  It was like it was straight out of the Hunger Games movies.  To even begin to compare something like CNN, even with it clearly having an agenda of going after Trump, to that dystopian garbage is an insult to reasonable people everywhere.

Fox News has real news during the day.  Often better than CNN and even some more objective news sources.  But at night in primetime on Fox is the most ridiculous slanted trash in the history of news.

 
cosjobs said:
Its wildly ironic that you started a thread about falsely objective wherein you weren't even the subject of the post
Click to expand...
It's wild that you can't seem to separate out an incompetent president from the hysterical, over-the-top and personalized reaction to him on both this board and within the media. 

It's kind of funny how upset I make you guys...I'm not the one that looks like a fulminating joke.  

 
rockaction said:
It's wild that you can't seem to separate out an incompetent president from the hysterical, over-the-top and personalized reaction to him on both this board and within the media. 

It's kind of funny how upset I make you guys...I'm not the one that looks like a fulminating joke.  
Click to expand...
It probably helps that few here know what fulminating means.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It kind of baffles my why people get so offended by pointing out obvious bias in news sources.  It is so obvious what side of an issue a reporter/source is on.  Body language, adjectives, facial expressions, facts presented vs. facts ignored, tone, graphics.  You can see the disgust in CNN reporting on virtually every story about Trump.  Because a person might agree that Trump is disgusting, does not make the reporting objective.  It takes a lot of effort to try to report objectively and I really don't see any network, newspaper, magazine or radio program that even makes an attempt to really be objective outside of NPR.  They all have a clear agenda which takes all of 30 seconds to spot in any given story.   

 
jon_mx said:
It kind of baffles my why people get so offended by pointing out obvious bias in news sources.  It is so obvious what side of an issue a reporter/source is on.  Body language, adjectives, facial expressions, facts presented vs. facts ignored, tone, graphics.  You can see the disgust in CNN reporting on virtually every story about Trump.  Because a person might agree that Trump is disgusting, does not make the reporting objective.  It takes a lot of effort to try to report objectively and I really don't see any network, newspaper, magazine or radio program that even makes an attempt to really be objective outside of NPR.  They all have a clear agenda which takes all of 30 seconds to spot in any given story.   
Click to expand...
I think some people not only want to think they are right, but they want the delusion of thinking that they got their news from a source that was objective and not just pushing an agenda. 

 
jon_mx said:
It kind of baffles my why people get so offended by pointing out obvious bias in news sources.  It is so obvious what side of an issue a reporter/source is on.  Body language, adjectives, facial expressions, facts presented vs. facts ignored, tone, graphics.  You can see the disgust in CNN reporting on virtually every story about Trump.  Because a person might agree that Trump is disgusting, does not make the reporting objective.  It takes a lot of effort to try to report objectively and I really don't see any network, newspaper, magazine or radio program that even makes an attempt to really be objective outside of NPR.  They all have a clear agenda which takes all of 30 seconds to spot in any given story.   
Click to expand...
Trump deserves disgust as a person.  

 
adonis said:
Trump deserves disgust as a person.  
Click to expand...
But if it is influenced on pre-conceived personal feelings going into a story and not the story itself, then you are not being objective in reporting the story.  Inserting your disgust into the story is a way to try to bias the viewers on how they should perceive the facts.  You may like that and agree with doing that, but I can not see how that can be twisted into being objective.    

 
jon_mx said:
But if it is influenced on pre-conceived personal feelings going into a story and not the story itself, then you are not being objective in reporting the story.  Inserting your disgust into the story is a way to try to bias the viewers on how they should perceive the facts.  You may like that and agree with doing that, but I can not see how that can be twisted into being objective.    
Click to expand...
It's a disservice to readers/viewers to approach each story fresh without context.  What you call "pre-conceived personal feelings," I call background information.  For example, reporting that "Trump said X," without any further information, might lead a reader to mistakenly think that Trump actually believes X. 

 
jon_mx said:
But if it is influenced on pre-conceived personal feelings going into a story and not the story itself, then you are not being objective in reporting the story.  Inserting your disgust into the story is a way to try to bias the viewers on how they should perceive the facts.  You may like that and agree with doing that, but I can not see how that can be twisted into being objective.    
Click to expand...
It's an interesting point, but can you offer a clear example of this?

 
timschochet said:
It's an interesting point, but can you offer a clear example of this?
Click to expand...
We are talking about an example.  You can see disgust in CNN reporters with Trump even before he opens his mouth.  If you go into a story with disgust and are looking for things to be disgusted by, a story will come across a lot different than if you go into a story with an open objective mind. 

 
jon_mx said:
We are talking about an example.  You can see disgust in CNN reporters with Trump even before he opens his mouth.  If you go into a story with disgust and are looking for things to be disgusted by, a story will come across a lot different than if you go into a story with an open objective mind. 
Click to expand...
Your explanation here is so vague there's no way to prove it or disprove it.

 
jon_mx said:
We are talking about an example.  You can see disgust in CNN reporters with Trump even before he opens his mouth.  If you go into a story with disgust and are looking for things to be disgusted by, a story will come across a lot different than if you go into a story with an open objective mind. 
Click to expand...
Come in now...we are down to people claiming they see disgust in reporters faces?

 
jon_mx said:
We are talking about an example.  You can see disgust in CNN reporters with Trump even before he opens his mouth.  If you go into a story with disgust and are looking for things to be disgusted by, a story will come across a lot different than if you go into a story with an open objective mind. 
Click to expand...
Like fatguy said, context is important in reporting, and much of the context surrounding Trump's actions and comments is worthy of disgust.

Failing to connect the dots in journalism is failing.  

Is CNN incredibly critical of Trump? Yes.  Does he deserve it?  Absolutely.  Do the facts warrant it?  Without a doubt.

So you want a pathological liar, a misogynist, a boorish sexual predator, an incurious blowhard, to be given the benefit of the doubt in each situation without any judgments made around his previous comments or actions.  It sounds to me like that is a pretty biased view...one that would favor the worst folks in the world, and put at disadvantage the best.

 
jon_mx said:
We are talking about an example.  You can see disgust in CNN reporters with Trump even before he opens his mouth.  If you go into a story with disgust and are looking for things to be disgusted by, a story will come across a lot different than if you go into a story with an open objective mind. 
Click to expand...
So are you saying they covered and treaded his speech on Monday regarding Afghanistan the same way they covered his speech in Arizona that was full of lies and divisiveness?   if that is the case then you are correct, but I'm guessing it didn't go down like that.

 
I have to say amid the Fox criticisms/attacks - mine own included - CNN has its own damage, though it’s slowly corrosive. The Crossfire mentality - from which Tucker Carlson was actually born on tv - has at its core people who will support and defend absolutely *anything, because that’s their job.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CNN is suffering a credibility crisis as viewership for the once-proud network continues to crater with no apparent plan in place to fix things anytime soon, according to media watchdogs and insiders.

CNN’s audience shriveled in the second quarter of 2019, averaging only 541,000 total viewers, less than half Fox News Channel’s 1.3 million average. But CNN struggled even more during the primetime hours of 8-11 p.m. ET, finishing as the fifteenth most-watched network on basic cable behind networks such as TLC, Investigation Discovery and the Hallmark Channel. CNN averaged a dismal 761,000 primetime viewers while FNC averaged 2.4 million.

“The numbers warrant concern, yes. Q2 was a particularly news-rich quarter highlighted by the release of the Mueller report and all the aftermath and controversy following it, plus the launch of several high-profile Democratic candidacies including Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg to propel 2020 coverage into high gear,” Concha said. “It may only get worse in Q3 given the numbers we’re already seeing.”

 
CNN is almost as bad as MSNBC.  Imagine if you watched those channels, particularily a hack like Maddow who was 100% wrong about Russia conspiracy.

 
I look back at all the old threads I've started, and I glow.

They're like my children. Often not getting the village they deserve, but there, in the ether, waiting to be recalled. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Newsweek: "Democrats Have Forgotten The Working Class. It Will Cost Them" (7/14/22 14:39 PST)
Replies
19
Views
926
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
HellToupee
Ted Kennedy , the liberal lion, attempted to conspire and collude with the Kremlin to defeat Ronald Reagan
2
Replies
61
Views
2K
rockaction
rockaction
BobbyLayne
The 25 Greatest Films of the 21st Century So Far
2 3 4
Replies
155
Views
6K
El Floppo
El Floppo

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Top