The debate "CNN is fake news" was started by
February 27, 2017, 10:56 pm.
18 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Yanksxx21 posted 9 arguments, mmjd14 posted 1 argument, MrShine posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
Blu_Ray posted 4 arguments, Nemiroff posted 3 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 6 arguments, redstar posted 1 argument, Ematio posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Ematio, Yanksxx21, sabrina, MrShine, UnderdogMike, human, makson, NPW and 10 visitors agree.
Blu_Ray, TheExistentialist, Nemiroff, PsychDave, redstar, Sudharshan, historybuff, nicksgallagher, EthanTReilly, SalonY, DeRosaDirt and 10 visitors disagree.
So CNN doesn't benefit from Don Lemon's work? It's toted as an opinion piece? What about Chris Cuemo saying it's illegal to view WikiLeaks and that you must go through the mainstream media to learn about it? Surely you cannot dismiss CNN using television personalities for anchors, instead of "just the facts" reporting. It's simply dishonest of them to report on what they don't know, or outright lie. With the previous stories, would you say he didn't know what he was saying, or that he lied?
I may concede the talk about the black hole discussion, though it isn't as if the coverage pushed for outlandish questions about black holes. He pursued it as if it were serious, despite a quick internet search's worth of time can dismiss otherwise.
The CNN don lemon thing was a piece about him talking about the various conspiracy theories out there with Malaysia flight 370.
Sure it's silly content, but it's not fake news. That's an overstatement at best.
Again, it was don lemon who made the Hillary tape being fake comment. However, CNN had run multiple stories confirming the tape's authenticity. So you can't really make the case that they were pedalling fake news as a network. Furthermore, they publicly called don lemons remarks false.
So, again, not a case for calling CNN as a network false. You can certainly make the case that Don Lemon is not a very good show, but that's about it. Anything beyond that is an overstatement.
You know how many live interviews in CNN that have been "accidentally" disconnected when someone said something they didn't like?
hahaha do you remember when CNN tried to push black holes as real news? or when CNN had Hillary laughing at a rapist running free, only to rescind it as news and use Politifact? It can't be both, in regards to Hillary freeing the rapist and it can't be a black hole over the Bermuda triangle. But they did try to do both.
Hahaha, this is hilarious. The use of a known fake news site (yournewswire) to try and prove CNN is fake.
Yournewswire listed as a known fake news source
A list of articles and known fake news articles run by yournewswire
Come on, learn to vet your sources.
Amber Lyon who works for CNN said the US government and foreign government pays CNN to fake news. i mean what more proof do you want go to yournewswire.com
nancy sinatra just a little lie but she called out CNN for making up stories about her saying she didnt like him playing her dads music at the inauguration which isn't a big deal but just causes peoples trust for CNN to go down
mistakes like Spelling mistakes , grammar , etc and lies like not admitting to make mistakes
I'm not saying they never make mistakes, but lies like what?
they're totally bias its not even debatable and they have been caught in many lies
Disclaimer: the following is just my opinion and how I feel about the topic
I believe they are a bit bias... I listen to a radio show and the host is on CNN sometimes. On the show he said that he was going to be in CNN the next day but he ended up not showing. He explained to his viewers/listeners that they had called him to learn his opinion in the topic. After he told them they said he wasn't going to be on the show.
So clearly they can be bias but I don't think they are fake news
"Fox also makes an attempt at bias by having permant left leaning people in their shows."
it doesn't help that the "left leaning" guests are considered frauds by the actual left. those are strawman liberals.
Viewership does not mean variety. CNN is a fairly moderate news outlet sharing an audience with MSNBC, BBC, PBS, etc... Fox doesn't really have much competition.
Simply because CNN viewership is lower than Fox, doesn't mean Fox is more accurate. Neither does bias effect truthfulness. You can present facts in a bias way and remain true to their context. Flat out lies cannot be dismissed by just saying something to the effect of: "viewers trust them, so they must be accurate". It could simply be that Fox's viewer base is ignorant of the facts and being lied to.
I know you don't like extrapolating data from past years, but there is no data out for this year yet. So all we have is old data to extrapolate from.
At least I've given you evidence for my claim. You've given me one example of CNN providing poor news coverage, and one reporter tweeting and then correcting his own tweet minutes later.
"Fox also makes an attempt at bias by having permant left leaning people in their shows."
Every 24 hour news network brings on opposition voices. Unfortunately, their presence doesn't affect accuracy either.
I digress the fake news from these accusations is the inability repeatedly to check facts on whether or not these are credible sources , and using speculation as fact time and time again . I will admit that they are not fake news or any news , more so liberal propaganda and a joke, and that's why their ratings have been rapidly decreasing.
And the pundits have done a "accurate" job this past year, so I'm not going to be so quick to jump on those sources in my own opinion
You need to also look at this way a higher concentration of leftward leaning people watch CNN so their trustworthiness by their standards is high , Fox news has a larger viewer base and so its not going to be as concentrated by just one viewer type as cnn is, that dosent matter however if cnn nationally truley was believed to be the most trustworthy then they should be much closer to Fox in its number of viewers. Fox also makes an attempt at bias by having permant left leaning people in their shows.
If there's any fake news, then thats Al-Jazeera
you hate France24, Russia_Today and DW TV?
Ummmm....You linked a graph to ratings, as in viewership. How does that have any relevance to the accuracy of CNN's news?
It's hard to find a lot of good macro data on the issue. Here is a pundit analysis of the networks and as you can see CNN actually does really well compared to Fox.
Let's look at the dossier story. You call it "fake" news. I think you're overstating your case drastically. At best you could call irresponsible reporting and sensationalism. However, the dossier was real, the accusation were in line with what the investigations were showing, and the story was presented to CNN by credible sources. CNN overstated the nature of the dossier and what it could verify to be true, but the information contained in the reporting wasn't "fake" in any meaningful sense of the word.
The MLK bust story, is likely to be incompetence rather than an intentional swipe. Miller, almost immediately corrected the tweet (it never was a news story) and apologized to the trump administration. It being a lone tweet from a reported and not actually part of the CNN's news program definitely doesn't seem like "fake" news. I think you're overstating your case once again.
I agree that CNN's pundits are biased, but every 24 hour news network has bias pundits, so to call it "fake" due to this is simply casting too wide of a net. Personally, I'm a fan of NPR, BBC, the economist, and politico (along with a few science publications).
I personally as a conservative don't listen to Info Wars or read Breibart as they are the right wing equivalent of CNN and the New York Times
They've had a plethora of false reporting and news and did not have respect to fact check, such as the dossier report and the bust of Martin Luther as of recent
Which stories? You can't just make a claim with validating it with examples. I can't find any examples of "fake" news reported on CNN without an official retraction, or amended to the story.
You're essentially accusing CNN of being Breitbart or the national enquirer.
In fact, CNN consistently has better ratings than MSNBC, ABC, Fox, and CBS when it comes to the percentage of true vs false statements made by on air personnel.
There is a reason why their ratings and revenue have dropped so drastically, they have been exposed time and time again through their fabrications, and their corruption of giving candidates id their choice questions ahead of time. So tell me to you, what is Fake News?
So this isn't an argument whether or not we oppose those to whom are critical of Trump , but rather those who are to quick to jump on to any story , no matter if its true or remotley satisfied in its evidence, and whose soul purpose is to tear down our President who they did not want to win as is obvious in their biased coverage that much of the time is not factual of true , and opposite of true is fake, hence FAKE NEWS
CNNhad constantly presented stories that have been proven false, and present stories as true without any evidence..News is supposed to expose facts , not make up whatever they want and treat it fact
what do you even mean by "fake" news? Do you mean "fake" like the nation enquirer is fake, or "fake" as in some other form of the word, or do you mean "fake" in no sense of the word as Trump uses it?
isn't if funny that every news source critical of trump is "fake" yet breitbart and infowars are getting the thumbs up?
For example? News like? CNN is interesting though.