CNN producer to Student: Stick to the script

[Benton]

(02-23-2018, 09:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And started doing shit like this...


(The staged protests of Muslims protesting terrorism after an attack.)

Or when Brazile got let go by CNN for getting caught giving questions to Hillary. Etc... the journalism and ethical standards have really fallen down across the board. Playing down to Fox "News" level is not a good thing.

Brazil was in the wrong, fired. That’s not really a sign of collusion as much as bad foresight. Did they pull a fox and wait until sponsors pulled?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(02-26-2018, 04:58 PM)Benton Wrote: Brazil was in the wrong, fired. That’s not really a sign of collusion as much as bad foresight. Did they pull a fox and wait until sponsors pulled?

True.  They have gotten quite a few things wrong of late as well.  I think that the general atmosphere at CNN is so anti-Trump it's caused them to report things they want to be true.  Where they really jumped the shark for me is when they tracked that reddit guy down after Trump retweeted his meme (that he didn't even create).  That was so douchey that they instantly become persona non grata for me.

[Benton]

(02-26-2018, 05:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: True.  They have gotten quite a few things wrong of late as well.  I think that the general atmosphere at CNN is so anti-Trump it's caused them to report things they want to be true.  Where they really jumped the shark for me is when they tracked that reddit guy down after Trump retweeted his meme (that he didn't even create).  That was so douchey that they instantly become persona non grata for me.

Agreed. It’s kind of weird as I always saw msnbc as the one blinded by ideals (at least that far left). CNN is doing a good job of making them forgettable.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-26-2018, 04:30 PM)treee Wrote: That 24/7 news channels ends up either grossly exaggerating things or making them up altogether to keep ratings up.

Agreed 24/7 news channels have made the division worse.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-26-2018, 05:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed. It’s kind of weird as I always saw msnbc as the one blinded by ideals (at least that far left). CNN is doing a good job of making them forgettable.

MSNBC is far left. They openly admit it. CNN is the one keeping up the unbiased charade.

[treee]

(02-26-2018, 05:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: MSNBC is far left.   They openly admit it.   CNN is the one keeping up the unbiased charade.

Regardless of the leaning of any particular news channel, they're all owned my Mass-Media Conglomerates i.e. corporate news.

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2018, 06:33 PM)treee Wrote: Regardless of the leaning of any particular news channel, they're all owned my Mass-Media Conglomerates i.e. corporate news.

Yup. The bias of these news companies is the bias of money. If they sell ads, then that is going to be their bias most of the time. Corporate news has a duty to their shareholder(s) like any other corporation, and they will make decisions based on that.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-26-2018, 06:38 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yup. The bias of these news companies is the bias of money. If they sell ads, then that is going to be their bias most of the time. Corporate news has a duty to their shareholder(s) like any other corporation, and they will make decisions based on that.

What is your opinion, of this trend?

http://www.france24.com/en/20180225-free-news-gets-scarcer-paywalls-tighten

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2018, 06:50 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: What is your opinion, of this trend?

http://www.france24.com/en/20180225-free-news-gets-scarcer-paywalls-tighten

I'm actually in favor of it. I feel like if I value something enough, I am going to pay for it. Good journalism is something I value. Even sites that don't have a paywall, I have made a habit of donating to at least once a year. I do also subscribe to WaPo, my local paper, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, though, because I like being informed. I have subscriptions to a couple of news magazines as well (though I prefer digital only).

I would rather a media company earn money through subs than through ads because, in theory anyway, the product is subscriber focused rather than advertiser or owner focused.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-26-2018, 06:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm actually in favor of it. I feel like if I value something enough, I am going to pay for it. Good journalism is something I value. Even sites that don't have a paywall, I have made a habit of donating to at least once a year. I do also subscribe to WaPo, my local paper, and the Richmond Times-Dispatch, though, because I like being informed. I have subscriptions to a couple of news magazines as well (though I prefer digital only).

I would rather a media company earn money through subs than through ads because, in theory anyway, the product is subscriber focused rather than advertiser or owner focused.

I would likely be more apt to subscribe to one of the wire services, as opposed to a specific "newspaper".  For State and local news, Spectrum news channel actually does one heck of a good job, at least I think.  They do a great job of presenting the news without showing any political bias, much more so than the local Network affiliates, anyway.  

[BmorePat87]

(02-23-2018, 09:31 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: And started doing shit like this...


(The staged protests of Muslims protesting terrorism after an attack.)

Or when Brazile got let go by CNN for getting caught giving questions to Hillary. Etc... the journalism and ethical standards have really fallen down across the board. Playing down to Fox "News" level is not a good thing.

The staged protest is fake news in the sense that CNN didn't stage it. 

https://www.snopes.com/cnn-muslim-protests-london/


Also, CNN parted ways with Brazille as soon as they found out and CNN anchors spoke out against her. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2018, 04:30 PM)treee Wrote: That 24/7 news channels ends up either grossly exaggerating things or making them up altogether to keep ratings up.

Like I said, I can criticize the entertainent approach, but is there a lot of evidence of them straight up making things up?

[Belsnickel]

(02-26-2018, 07:07 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I would likely be more apt to subscribe to one of the wire services, as opposed to a specific "newspaper".  For State and local news, Spectrum news channel actually does one heck of a good job, at least I think.  They do a great job of presenting the news without showing any political bias, much more so than the local Network affiliates, anyway.  

Spectrum isn't something available to me for state and local news. RTD and my local paper do a decent job, though my local paper has been on a downhill slide for years. But in all honesty, as long as you know what you are reading you can get news from most reputable sources without much of a bias. WaPo, for example, has a slant to it, but that's primarily for analysis and opinion pieces. Its harder news is thorough and neutral. Same for WSJ, NYT, and a host of others. Of course, a lot of those papers also rely on wire services for some of their stories. Having a subscription to a newspaper actually supports the AP, usually, because some of those funds are going to go back to them.

[treee]

(02-26-2018, 07:44 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Like I said, I can criticize the entertainent approach, but is there a lot of evidence of them straight up making things up?

Well, somebody is. How many 'anonymous sources' have been completely wrong or were never verified at all? Either way, it's a hit to journalistic integrity.

[Dill]

(02-26-2018, 03:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The only reason to check into CNN is for leftist confirmation bias.   The trump people there are weak.  

I do feel bad for Jake Tapper.   I believe he is an honest journalist.   He shouldn’t be stuck on that channel.

"Leftists" used to be people who wanted public ownership of the means of production. Now they are just any liberal centrist.

Just curious, Lucy--whom do you "check"?  What which of your news sources most escapes the "bias" charge?

[ballsofsteel]

Drumph tweets something stupid every day. CNN repeats exactly what he says by posting his moronic tweet of the day
on the screen. Trump news (Fox) does not do this. So this makes CNN bias. I understand now.

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2018, 03:44 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I do feel bad for Jake Tapper.   I believe he is an honest journalist.   He shouldn’t be stuck on that channel.

Jake Tapper is a great journalist. I'm actually happy to left ABC. He gets more exposure on CNN, which is a better thing for his career. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-26-2018, 07:54 PM)treee Wrote: Well, somebody is. How many 'anonymous sources' have been completely wrong or were never verified at all? Either way, it's a hit to journalistic integrity.

Journalism has always banked on sources. Given how quickly they shut down fake tips (think when James O'Keefe tried to feed a fake Roy Moore story to WaPo), their standards are pretty high in handling them WHEN done correctly. There are screw ups and people lose their jobs over it. 

[GMDino]

[StLucieBengal]

(02-26-2018, 08:47 PM)Dill Wrote: "Leftists" used to be people who wanted public ownership of the means of production. Now they are just any liberal centrist.

Just curious, Lucy--whom do you "check"?  What which of your news sources most escapes the "bias" charge?

When did I call any centrist a leftist?

CNN is not centrist.

As for me, I actually read a variety. I don’t mind openly biased news agencies, in fact I prefer them. If you read enough stories you can find out what is actually the underlying facts and what is commentary.