4 ms·

> Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. That's not actually remotely true. People Are Subjective, and "real news" is written by people, a

> Real news is not subjective. There is no agree or disagree. That's not actually remotely true. People Are Subjective, and "real news" is written by people, and often about people. For one example, they gave Sanders less coverage than Clinton in every single week of the Dem primary; about 2/3 overall. Their visuals, style, tone and presentation are meticulously crafted to give the impression that they're trustworthy and patriotic; that things are simple. That really ought to give you a clue that they're selling you something. Tip of the iceberg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

tootie 5y ago
You're confusing editorial bias with inaccuracy. When CNN says there's a fire in California there's probably a fire in California. That list of very subjective allegations of bias or mistakes out of what's probably tens of thousands of stories they run per year. And I'm fully aware it is a for profit business run by fallible human beings. What I'm saying is that it's a fundamentally ethical and reliable source. One that almost always gets their facts straight but is not able to cover every angle. That's why I read a variety of sources. I'm not comparing them a mythical platonic ideal media organization. I'm comparing them to outlets that are willing to push blatant falsehoods like birtherism or vaccine denial while giving "equal time" to climate deniers or the Laffer Curve economists. Fox was run for decades by a guy who loved conspiracy theories and was not bothered by colluding with politicians on one side and not the other. OAN and Newsmax are worse. And on top of that a lot the hatred towards CNN is based purely on politically motivated lies. Trump hated them and told his supporters to hate them for spurious reasons. He would accuse them of lying about "the Russia thing" without citing an actual bad report as a way to distract from the factual reporting that made him look bad. Spreading mistrust of the media was part of his playbook to control what people believe and it worked extremely well.
- mandmandam 5y ago
  Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you get. I'll save you the effort; it's ZERO. Here's a CNN page full of facts on the kids in border camps - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-a... People will read that, and think to themselves, oh what an even handed tone. What a large number of facts, and nice graphic breakdowns. But the crucial context is missing - who is running those camps, and what are their contracts like? Those people are making money hand over fist, on the back of the misery of children in tin-foil blankets drinking water out of toilets. Same with their "fast facts" section on Assange - an exercise in misinformation. The information might be "factual", but it's carefully selected to give a particular impression. Crucial information isn't there, such as the US' key witness admitting he gave false evidence, or Nils Melzer's observations. Yes, a search for Nils Melzer yields TWO articles - compare to a search for 'Kardashian', which yields 1,700 hits. There are more stories about the Kardashian's shoe line than the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A search for 'Chomsky' yields 7 result; none seem to be about him or his observations. Yes, SEVEN, the single digit number. 'Zizek' yields ONE (and 'Žižek 'yields zero). 'Snooki' yields 116. That's not News bud; not any more than Fox. That's entertainment. If you want to learn about a fire in California there are hundreds of ways to do it, and they're probably mostly better than CNN.
  - tootie 5y ago
    That's basically all your personal biases on display. Chomsky is certainly not news. Nor do I expect them to cover absolutely everything. Like I said, I use multiple sources but even still my head can only hold so much and CNN only has a finite number of reporters. Like I also said they certainly have editorial bias because they have to choose what to cover given finite resources. The fact they miss some of these tiny stories is expected. That doesn't make them unethical or inaccurate.
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      CNN is "fundamentally ethical and reliable", but I have my "personal biases" on display ... "Chomsky certainly isn't news"... "Tiny stories", like Donziger and Melzer. ... Wow. Well, enjoy following the news CNN choose to tell you, I guess. Those Kardashian shoe lines are much more news than anything Chomsky has to say for some people, and I guess you're one of them. lol

tootie 5y ago

You're confusing editorial bias with inaccuracy. When CNN says there's a fire in California there's probably a fire in California. That list of very subjective allegations of bias or mistakes out of what's probably tens of thousands of stories they run per year. And I'm fully aware it is a for profit business run by fallible human beings. What I'm saying is that it's a fundamentally ethical and reliable source. One that almost always gets their facts straight but is not able to cover every angle. That's why I read a variety of sources. I'm not comparing them a mythical platonic ideal media organization. I'm comparing them to outlets that are willing to push blatant falsehoods like birtherism or vaccine denial while giving "equal time" to climate deniers or the Laffer Curve economists. Fox was run for decades by a guy who loved conspiracy theories and was not bothered by colluding with politicians on one side and not the other. OAN and Newsmax are worse. And on top of that a lot the hatred towards CNN is based purely on politically motivated lies. Trump hated them and told his supporters to hate them for spurious reasons. He would accuse them of lying about "the Russia thing" without citing an actual bad report as a way to distract from the factual reporting that made him look bad. Spreading mistrust of the media was part of his playbook to control what people believe and it worked extremely well.

mandmandam 5y ago
Fundamentally ethical and reliable? Wow. It says a lot that Fox and OAN are your basis of comparison. Search CNN.com for Donziger and see how many results you get. I'll save you the effort; it's ZERO. Here's a CNN page full of facts on the kids in border camps - https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-administration-border-crisis/ https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2021/04/politics/biden-a... People will read that, and think to themselves, oh what an even handed tone. What a large number of facts, and nice graphic breakdowns. But the crucial context is missing - who is running those camps, and what are their contracts like? Those people are making money hand over fist, on the back of the misery of children in tin-foil blankets drinking water out of toilets. Same with their "fast facts" section on Assange - an exercise in misinformation. The information might be "factual", but it's carefully selected to give a particular impression. Crucial information isn't there, such as the US' key witness admitting he gave false evidence, or Nils Melzer's observations. Yes, a search for Nils Melzer yields TWO articles - compare to a search for 'Kardashian', which yields 1,700 hits. There are more stories about the Kardashian's shoe line than the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture. A search for 'Chomsky' yields 7 result; none seem to be about him or his observations. Yes, SEVEN, the single digit number. 'Zizek' yields ONE (and 'Žižek 'yields zero). 'Snooki' yields 116. That's not News bud; not any more than Fox. That's entertainment. If you want to learn about a fire in California there are hundreds of ways to do it, and they're probably mostly better than CNN.
- tootie 5y ago
  That's basically all your personal biases on display. Chomsky is certainly not news. Nor do I expect them to cover absolutely everything. Like I said, I use multiple sources but even still my head can only hold so much and CNN only has a finite number of reporters. Like I also said they certainly have editorial bias because they have to choose what to cover given finite resources. The fact they miss some of these tiny stories is expected. That doesn't make them unethical or inaccurate.
  - mandmandam 5y ago
    CNN is "fundamentally ethical and reliable", but I have my "personal biases" on display ... "Chomsky certainly isn't news"... "Tiny stories", like Donziger and Melzer. ... Wow. Well, enjoy following the news CNN choose to tell you, I guess. Those Kardashian shoe lines are much more news than anything Chomsky has to say for some people, and I guess you're one of them. lol