4 ms·

I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/medi

I believe the prime example is CNN giving questions to the Clinton campaign ahead of a debate, which is certain unethical. http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/31/with-question-leaking-cnn-has-a-scandal-on-its-hands/?utm_term=.194755078c28 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2016/10/... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/31/donna-brazile-clinton-cnn-debate-wikileaks/93058560/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/... Multiple outlets, though - I don't know about that. As pointed out, checking for accuracy and talking to a campaign is certainly not off-limit.

croon 10y ago
Yes, while that looks really bad, it's: 1) Uncertain at what level it was when the person involved got the boot. 2) Only one actor, which I'd rank fairly low compared to Guardian, Atlantic, Foreign Policy, NYT, WP, etc. I read your links, and I agree with them, but it's still only what it is, uncertain what it means... there's definitely no proof of a conspiracy, regardless if there is one or not. The seed of one of these maybe-stories, flaring into a craze of "every news channel is evil, burn them all" is unhelpful at best, damaging to democracy at worst.