11 ms·
CNN goes first two weeks of October without any program reaching 1M viewers
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThe worst part of air travel for our family is CNN on every screen. The children were scared seeing all the disasters in remote areas, the non-stop crises and arguments. WTF airports.
- ethbr0 5y agoAlso, "ATTENTION! EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY, BY ORDER OF THE TSA..."
- hervature 5y agoIf that's the worst part of air travel for you, you should count your blessings.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mensetmanusman 5y agoInconvenience is temporary, fear is lasting.
- hervature 5y agoNot only is fearing and avoiding places with natural disasters rational (people avoid traveling to the Caribbean during hurricane season) but they are children. Given that I don't know a single adult who has a phobia of remote disasters, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that your kids forgot about it the next time they played Roblox.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoThis is true, fear has evolutionary advantages. However it is also blinding, so, like fire, it has a place. Spreading fear in an airport is odd, and it would be better dealt with in other contexts.
- coffeefirst 5y agoRight! If they must have TVs on, switch to travel programming, which would actually make sense in context.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoYea thats a super bizarre decision on the part if airports, I don’t imagine CNN/fox pays them, they probably pay huge cable bills for the privilege of increasing their customers’ anxiety. Weather channel might make sense, but why not some anthony bourdain or rick steves, some upbeat travel TV?
- samspenc 5y agoActually CNN does pay the airports to feature them but hopefully not much longer: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-01-12/cnn-is-shutting-down-its-airport-network-on-mar-31 https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/20...
- b9be520d93286 5y agoFinally some good news!
- miked85 5y agoThey are pretty blatantly just a propaganda outlet at this point, it is even obvious to former viewers.
- hh3k0 5y agoAll media outlets are, only the degree of audacity varies.
- systemvoltage 5y agohttps://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings CNN is especially eggregious. NYTimes should also be on the left column which is reflected in the votes "Somewhat disagree" with the current characterization as Center-Left (scroll down). Edit: I am just pointing out a free publicly available dataset of what the population thinks of the media. Make what you will, don't shoot me.
- MattRix 5y agoThere is nothing necessarily wrong with bias toward a specific side, unless you make the flawed assumption that the truth must be in the center.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoQuid est veritas? Politics is preference, talks of truth are usually a pretense to strengthen a reason for a given preference.
- iopq 5y agoHow about no bias towards any side? I know, it's never happened, but what if?
- hirundo 5y agoYou can't interpret any fact without an internal model of how the universe works. That model is a "side" and compared to any other model, has a difference called "bias". There is presumably one true model that matches reality best. You could call that "unbiased", but since nobody can reliably identify it, we're stuck with bias.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Scharkenberg 5y agoWhat a terribly written article, let alone that it provides no sources. London Daily isn't a reputable and reviewed news source and it admits the following on the About Us page: > Publishing news is very simple, just click ‘add your news’ on the site and it will take the author to the article upload interface. Why was this excuse of a news article even posted here?
- peter_retief 5y agoWhy not? CNN is complete propaganda without any actual news. I really dont understand how intelligent people can watch it.
- Waterluvian 5y agoAs an outsider who has dabbled in American television, this is true for all of American television. It’s incredible how even those who don’t think they’re brainwashed are brainwashed.
- IntelMiner 5y agoThe news has existed to drive public opinion for over a century, before television even existed. Hell, there was even a book written in 1922 named "Public Opinion" about the very subject. The blurb about it on Wikipedia echoes truer today than it did at the time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) The introduction describes man's inability to interpret the world: "The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance" between people and their environment. People construct a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world, and to a degree, everyone's pseudo-environment is a fiction. People "live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones."
- xqyf 5y agoThat's a broad brush. There's CNN/Fox News/OAN level bias and then there's ABC. It's a matter of degree.
- sys_64738 5y agoWhat is the "londondaily" website? Never heard of them.
- samizdis 5y agoGood question - and one to which I tried to find answers, having posted the link to the CNN article. To explain my "journey" earlier today, I followed a link from an article [1] in The Atlantic (which I read almost daily and which I rate highly) to a piece [2] in this "London Daily" site. It was irreverent commentary in a largely humorous vein. I decided to poke around the LD site, which has, apparently, been around since 1999 - although I had never come across it, and I read a lot. I saw the CNN viewing figures article and was surprised not to have seen it anywhere else. It surprised me to find what should be a news article carrying an intro that read like commentary/opinion. I posted the link to HN and then returned to LD to try to figure out what it was. It claims to be: a non-profit, private and self-funded, commonly-created News and info-sharing platform that enables everybody to share valuable content such as local and global news updates. The news is written by different contributors, all of them volunteers. I then went to its full "about" section [3], which includes these statements: > London Daily is not supported by anybody, and it is not supporting any specific agenda. The mission is simply to share with all readers the big picture about every topic with as much balance as possible, without any vested political or commercial interest, for the common benefit of all, regardless of their economic status, political points of view, beliefs, and personal preferences. > Users who wants to share their own content on London Daily are welcome to include with it advertising for their own benefit – for free and without any profit sharing with London Daily . > ... we are also not Wikileaks, The Intercept, Telegram, etc... This platform and infrastructure is not designed to deal with super-sensitive or unlawful classified information nor to protect the privacy of the users that submit content. I've worked in news media for many years and had never come across anything like this "about" section before. I noticed that no items published have a proper dateline - so nothing in the archive (which seems to be reachable only via hash-style text links) carries a publication date, only the current date. This more than anything raised huge red flags, so I then picked a dozen or so articles at random to get a feel for the style/tone and political leanings of LD. It seems to be all over the place in all respects. Some nicely written work, some articles seemingly rewritten from news outlets such as Reuters, AP and other agencies etc. I moved from a stridently pro-vaccination article to another that seemingly took a polar opposite view (this second one was specifically dealing with COVID vaccination, not vaccines in general, which the first one had been). I pondered posting an "Ask HN" query to solicit HN views/opinions about this London Daily site, which has me baffled. (Again, I'd posted the CNN article mainly on the strength of having found London Daily via a direct link from The Atlantic - which, to me, lends credibility.) However, I had to go out for a few hours and didn't get around to an "Ask HN" post. Hindsight tells me that I should probably have deleted the original post to the CNN article. All that being said, I really would love to find out what this London Daily News thing is all about. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/how-read-trump-book/620452/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/10/how-read-t... [2] https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-description-of-trump-i-ve-read https://londondaily.com/british-writer-pens-the-best-descrip... [3] https://londondaily.com/ouwczz-about https://londondaily.com/ouwczz-about
- konfusinomicon 5y agoin other news, engine coolant is wet
- HenryKissinger 5y agoTheory: CNN watchers are more economically affluent than watchers of other channels and are too busy working jobs and running businesses and exercising and traveling etc. to watch CNN. Higher income households spend less time watching cable TV. Lower income people spend more time. A channel with high viewership is actually attracting the bottom bucket of society.
- dninednjwryv 5y agoExtraordinary level of mental gymnastics on display in this thread and here
- djsbs 5y agoyou classify CNN in the same way The Economist is largely segmented? Really?
- amackera 5y agoWho on HN is upvoting this kind of garbage article? > CNN continues to lose trust for its biased news against whoever did not vote for Biden, and its promotion of an extremist hate-culture against "the other" 84 million American voters. ... what?? This trash doesn't belong here.
- cvnlz 5y agoWhy is it trash? CNN lied about Rogan taking "horse paste" when he had a regular prescription for humans: https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1448696035916853251 https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/144869603591685... CNN is not the same as 20 years ago, and neither is the NYT.
- happytoexplain 5y agoRegardless of such sloppiness, the example the parent provided is clearly not news, but rather the political bickering of a scorned individual on a different "team", as is Greenwald's tweet. They damage discourse just as does, for example, the bad reporting Greenwald is criticizing.
- SaintGhurka 5y agoThe problem with what they said about Joe Rogan isn't that it's a lie, it's that it was designed to ridicule someone. That's adds no value to a news story. CNN has a bias, but that's forgivable. What's unforgivable is that they've become useless.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- thepasswordis 5y agoWhat about that statement is confusing? Shortened it is saying: "CNN is promoting an extremist hate culture towards people who voted for somebody other than Joe Biden". That seems accurate if you spend any time watching their programming.
- LinuxBender 5y agoIf the most important stats are active viewers then perhaps we should get our news from PewDiePie [1] /s But seriously there are a lot of long-form youtube hosts discussing news topics and current events taking the lead over traditional channels. Is there any speculation that traditional news platforms will reform and adapt, or would they have already done that? Is anything holding them back? [1] - https://www.noxinfluencer.com/youtube/channel/UC-lHJZR3Gqxm24_Vd_AJ5Yw https://www.noxinfluencer.com/youtube/channel/UC-lHJZR3Gqxm2...
- sydthrowaway 5y agoCNN is no good. Journalists describing Joe Rogan taking horse dewormer when he had a prescription for Ivermectin is indefensible.
- jazzyjackson 5y agoI really liked his commentary on CNN calling themselves “mainstream” as opposed to supposed fringe podcasters when he has easily 10x the viewership of any program on CNN - really CNN just makes themselves more fringe by lying about ivermectin
- rubyist5eva 5y agoThe entire corporate media blatantly ignoring that we've been safely giving Ivermectin to humans for decades is a total disgrace.
- sydthrowaway 5y agoMaybe the powers that be decided that the ends (vaxxing) justified the means?
- rubyist5eva 5y agoI would prefer that Jeff Zucker and Bezos don't tell me how to live my life, especially if they are going to lie to do it.
- fullshark 5y agoHow are those ends working out?
- xref 5y agoSo if instead of measles vaccine people started taking root beer, you’d want the reporting to be “humans have been safely drinking root beer for decades”?
- rubyist5eva 5y ago
- S_A_P 5y agoI personally think that it is right to be pretty skeptical of ALL news outlets at the moment. Am I saying that none of them get it right ever? Of course not. I would also ask anyone who is upset about this article calling out CNN to reflect on why they are upset. Is it because CNN is associated with being an ally of the left? I would ask the same if anyone feeling the same way about Fox/your favorite news outlet here. I didn’t read the linked article because I don’t really care if the fact in the headline is true or false. It doesn’t matter. What I worry about these days relates to the first sentence I wrote. Damn near every story from cable/entertainment news requires a deeper look and is usually written in such a way to inspire outrage and or binary tribalism. If that doesn’t scare you a little I would humbly ask you to reconsider.
- miked85 5y agoAgreed. I think the problem with CNN more than others such as MSNBC or Fox News is that CNN mixes opinion and news pretty aggressively. Daily or weekend news with the latter two is relatively objective, prime time is almost entirely option, but viewers know this. With CNN, it is all conflated.
- xtracto 5y agoI dont know of any CNN programs that are not opinion. From Anderson Cooper to Don Lemon (4 hours in the afternoon?') They are all obvious opinion / propaganda. As a person outside the US. I watch some of them along with Fox news opinion programs mainly for fun
- faridelnasire 5y agoTerrible untrusted website, but having recently watched CNN for 10 min, I also don't think it's wrong.
- codyswann 5y agoThat was my thought. What is this rag?
- xhkkffbf 5y agoI just don't find it that interesting anymore. The word "news" used to mean something that was new. Now everything is so politicized that it just means what's the latest update from a political faction. In this case, CNN is pretty much guaranteed to show the Biden administration in a good light and argue their agenda which seems to be more infrastructure and plenty of vaccines. Oh, and Trump is still bad. See. I saved you all of that time so now you can be productive instead of hearing the same thing over and over again.
- Proven 5y agoOther good news: Fox > (MSNBC + CNN) https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/thursday-oct-14-scoreboard-fox-news-again-averages-more-viewers-than-msnbc-and-cnn-combined/491733/ https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/thursday-oct-14-scoreboard-f...
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- cj 5y agoOff topic: For those looking for a decent cable TV news source, I highly recommend The News at 7pm ET on CNBC. It’s hosted by an ex-fox news anchor, but it’s the only cable news show I’ve found that isn’t blatantly far left liberal or far right conservative… and also hasn’t devolved into a talk show. It’s refreshing to hear segments reporting on actual events that occurred, and then on to the next segment without the talking head commentary.
- pupppet 5y agoAny article calling out a network about fake news without mentioning Fox News sure as hell does not belong on HN.
- 0xbadc0de5 5y agoWhat do you get when you mix science and politics? You get politics. What do you get when you mix journalism and politics? You get politics.
- sleepysysadmin 5y agoIts funny how history repeats. CNN is basically Fox during the Oreilly and Hannity era. Completely untrustworthy and been caught over and over knowingly pushing false stories. They have ruined their reputation and reputation is everything in the long run.