3 ms·

>whether that's Breitbart or CNN. Wow. CNN is now regarded as being on the end of a political spectrum. What a world we live in. I mean, attempting to be impar

by tormeh 10y ago

>whether that's Breitbart or CNN. Wow. CNN is now regarded as being on the end of a political spectrum. What a world we live in. I mean, attempting to be impartial is now a political act. That's crazy.

Natsu 10y ago
I don't see the GP making any claims about where they are on the political spectrum, however. If anything, that looks like a list of unreliable news sources to me. Lest we forget, CNN's credibility came into focus when their role in rigging the debates was discovered. There was an attempt to divert that by claiming nebulously that the emails had been 'altered', but then it was established that they were DKIM validated. CNN's Cuomo also told us that reading Wikileaks is "illegal" only to be contradicted by far more reputable lawyers at Popehat. Incidentally, Cuomo is an attorney and he should know better.
- tormeh 10y ago
  >I don't see the GP making any claims about where they are on the political spectrum, however. True. It wasn't meant like that. It was more of an observation on how the frame of public debate has shifted.
rtpg 10y ago
I think this is more allusion to the Prez calling CNN FAKE NEWS all the time rather than a value judgement by GP. There's an argument to be made that CNN smells blood since January 21st and is looking to be the ones that make the kill. The fact that news orgs have to choose coverage priorities is, in itself, political. Even if the coverage itself is impartial, would 24/7 coverage of Trump be non-political?
- bgw 10y ago
  Yes. A lot of media critiques try to discern bias in the content. However, bias exists prior to that. What and who is covered is bias. Ignoring a topic could be bias not how the topic is covered.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
rosser 10y ago
That's some out-of-context quoting, right there. Your post's parent's point, in the bit you quoted, is how "Fake news" has become — or is perhaps more accurately a thing certain people are trying to make into — a way of dismissing news sources you don't like. I don't read any endorsement or disparagement of either source in that post, or even an implication that they're "of a kind", except insofar as some people have painted both with a "fake news" brush, or that "objective" reporting is hard to find, anywhere. Neither of those claims should be particularly controversial.

by tormeh 10y ago

Natsu 10y ago

I don't see the GP making any claims about where they are on the political spectrum, however. If anything, that looks like a list of unreliable news sources to me. Lest we forget, CNN's credibility came into focus when their role in rigging the debates was discovered. There was an attempt to divert that by claiming nebulously that the emails had been 'altered', but then it was established that they were DKIM validated. CNN's Cuomo also told us that reading Wikileaks is "illegal" only to be contradicted by far more reputable lawyers at Popehat. Incidentally, Cuomo is an attorney and he should know better.

tormeh 10y ago
>I don't see the GP making any claims about where they are on the political spectrum, however. True. It wasn't meant like that. It was more of an observation on how the frame of public debate has shifted.

rtpg 10y ago

I think this is more allusion to the Prez calling CNN FAKE NEWS all the time rather than a value judgement by GP. There's an argument to be made that CNN smells blood since January 21st and is looking to be the ones that make the kill. The fact that news orgs have to choose coverage priorities is, in itself, political. Even if the coverage itself is impartial, would 24/7 coverage of Trump be non-political?

bgw 10y ago
Yes. A lot of media critiques try to discern bias in the content. However, bias exists prior to that. What and who is covered is bias. Ignoring a topic could be bias not how the topic is covered.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

rosser 10y ago

That's some out-of-context quoting, right there. Your post's parent's point, in the bit you quoted, is how "Fake news" has become — or is perhaps more accurately a thing certain people are trying to make into — a way of dismissing news sources you don't like. I don't read any endorsement or disparagement of either source in that post, or even an implication that they're "of a kind", except insofar as some people have painted both with a "fake news" brush, or that "objective" reporting is hard to find, anywhere. Neither of those claims should be particularly controversial.