The debate "What exactly is wrong with CNN and NYT coverage agree if nothing please explain if disagree" was started by
March 8, 2018, 1:23 pm.
15 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 10 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Nemiroff posted 13 arguments to the agreers part.
DrMrDaniel posted 1 argument, RavenclawOwl posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, Muneej, Samuel, brontoraptor and 11 visitors agree.
hassan, RavenclawOwl, MajorGeneralX and 7 visitors disagree.
have you actually compared the 2 yourself?
CNN is biased at least that is what my dad tells me, if you want really good coverage he says that Fox News is the place to go to.
If you don't know what the purpose of the clip was, then I suppose it wasn't 'news' and the plainspeak wasn't useful... or plainspeak.
I see an advertisement for a gun, different from peddling information in terms of trying to sell you something, salesmen have not tried to sell using facts only for a very long time.
A professional with nothing to add gives no credit to the authority figure. Of course they preface him with experience, but then nothing in the viewing experience says so.
I am not stretching bits of dialogue beyond their meaning to say "fear mongering", because if someone uses the same terminology as salesmen, and has no facts to provide... maybe watch out.
you mentioned the stance and shouldering several times, it would be rude to not address them. to them 1 have 2 points.
how much would a proper stance add? was this a story about how to shoot? considering the story only showed what it looks like, what it sounds like, and a brief history of its combat use. The target audience hasn't even seen this gun, definitely doesn't own the gun, and I'm not sure what the stance would add to the story.
the other point is although I am not questioning your familiarity with firearms and how to handle them, but this person is a military vet. it is not unheard of for a professional athlete to use unorthodox styles or stances, and with his presumed experience with this and numerous similar weapons, it would be no surprise that he would make a personalized stance custom to his personal comfort. he in no way looked unbalanced.
if the technicality is something important and cannot be explained in layman's terms they should absolutely use it, and if they use it they should absolutely explain it. but to do such things more often then what is necessary is simply not the purpose of the broadcast. it's here to inform you of news events, not technical lingo. i tried reading the wall street journal as a young adult, and honestly it was like reading a foreign language. I didn't understand the articles and I eventually gave up trying to read the paper. I'm all for increasing education but that should be a discussion regarding schools, not news papers. most people will simply stop reading news, and even more will be driven into the clutches of fake news.
the gun story is weak, far too short, and ineffective. I see nothing wrong with the expert, but i have no idea what the purpose of this piece was. what I do know is that unless you really stretch 1 or 2 lines, there was no bias or fear mongering. maximum damage is the goal of any lethal weapon, and the NRA and gun dealers use such language in their basic sales campaigns, so how is it out of place?
a sales site using the words maximum effect. if this was a salesman at a gun show, forgive me for assuming he would use less restrained language and sound more like the guy in your video. this expert was a person, not a PR or politician with a script. I mean that's what Americans on the right want to sound like, that's why they elected a non technical shoot from the hip president. seems like that guys language is exactly what a gun expert not working in a PR department would sound like.
if this is the worst of cnn then I am not convinced they are fake news in any sense. this is a symptom of the 24 hour cable news cycle where they have to fill 24 hours every day even if nothing happens. I think that format is stupid but I see no bias or agenda. just fluff to fill in time in between adequate reporting. is there better news? certainly, but it's all "lefty" media, and id love to see a right wing alternative with any amount of integrity, much less comparable to CNN.
it seems your claim is that it could do better, and I will never disagree with that. but that is not the purpose of this post. The people who claim CNN fake news are not trying to steer people to NPR or economic journals but rather to fox or worse.
I didn't say full technicalities, But it would be appreciated if something was used. Use a short but sweet technical term, and then explain it. Then, everyone is smarter for it, and understand how to use the term in the context.
For example, If I were to say a gun was semi-automatic, what do I mean by that? When you load up the gun, and changed the bullet, you only need to pull the trigger once for every shot. Fully automatic means that you do not need to. Once that is defined, people can use that definition when they try to define "smarter gun reform" whether I agree with them or not.
Let's go ahead with your example of a meteor expert. Suppose it is a cluster, and we want a professional to describe the reason for it. Suppose the reason could be summed up by a name, then wouldn't the expert opinion on the damage be exemplified by technical terminology? I'm sure if you watch space films, and know of kessler syndrome, if enhances the experience. Most films don't even need two minutes to do this.
In fact, technical terminology allows for further in depth though on a conversation, because associating an idea with a word allows you to play with it. With the video I provided, was the expert covering an event? No. Was it to inform on guns? Maybe, but not much information was provided. Was there strong opinions on the topic? It appears to be bipartisan, until further examination reveals that connotations and buzzwords kill bipartisan opinion (criminal justice majors need to pay attention to this as it may affect individuals in research methods, the introduction of questions themselves can alter opinions on surveys).
So if the video was shown to give an expert opinion and to have people think about the topic, maybe not even critically but to have their own measures, why would you not use technical terminology? Why would you choose no terminology? And why the hell does his shouldering look awful (an opinion, which may be dismissed but it may be worth considering in this context)?
it appears to me you expect news to have either full technicalities, or not be news at all. I'm sorry to say that even NPR would fall short for you because the only things with that level of detail are textbooks notorious for curing insomnia with a single page. your quest for perfectly technical news will leave a product the people will not be able to or willing to consume while judging anything less then perfectly technical as short of acceptable. it will be the death of news.
the truth is that what your asking for is impossible. no publication uses full technicalities. even technical journals limit their technicalities to their own field. The journal of medicine will not use technical financial or legal lingo. the wall street journal does use financial vernacular, but layman terms for medical terminology, etc. no one uses all forms of technical language, no one would understand that.
I think you have a false view of layman. layman does not = to stupid. layman just means you don't specialize in a specific field, which means everyone is a layman for most things, including me and you and Stephen hawking.
imagine a meteor is heading towards the earth. certainly a scientific journal will provide it's speed, mass, the numbers behind how our gravity is affecting it because it's audience is fluent in these numbers and may be interested to play with them. but what about the general news with a scientificly layman audience (full of intelligent experts of other fields like medicine and finance for whom physics mumbo jumbo is just mumbo jumbo.) they don't need or care for all of those technicalities, they just want the basics. what is happening, when will it happen, what will be the effect. it will add nothing and will only alienate the readers. what will be the purpose of that story, and would having a simplified, non technical cgi graphic of the collision take anything away from it? how much would it cost to have accurate models generated by supercomputers and wouldn't that limited money be better spent on more on the ground investigative journalists, a shrinking field?
It seems our definitions on "fake news" are different. It would be a matter of "did it happen?" versus "Is the interpretation fact"? I wouldn't deny that I take permission seriously, as news is presented by a story. Immersion can be ruined by out of place details, and at some point it makes me wonder how often or what sorts of logical leaps are taken in the presentation I see. I think you are giving the benefit of the doubt
with laymens terms in that particular, but I wouldn't pursue further.
I would be willing to accept the interpretation that news isn't that bad, but not that good, so long as ideas aren't taken at face value as some unfortunately do. I also don't believe that CNN has given many concessions either, but if they have a world view it wouldn't be right to think they should so long as it is admitted. A news source would never present a story separate from interpretation, which is why instead of showing raw information we see a "dress up" with experts, pundits and so on for the layman. Harsh, but without considering this it encourages lazy reporting and goes beyond the 'local, cherry picking' scope. Not that it isn't a good measure, but mediation also determines the interpretation of facts. People can do that, but may not and should know their news station has an Outlook, a 'bid' if that is a fair term.
That's about it, for a main focus.
I'm asking that question because it seems that your not questioning the validity of the articles on CNN, but their precision and detail. CNN is most definitely news but it is by no means in depth reporting. my only claim is that it's not biased beyond journalistic integrity. they cover things fairly. even their barrage of articles against trump are justified by trumps barrage of things normally worthy of reporting about, even if I do wish they'd move on.
for the highest quality I like the economic based papers (wall street journal, economist, forbes) and I really recommend NPR which focuses on general news and covers everything (unlike the economic ones). the thing is the level of detail these provide is not easily digest, and often not enjoyed by the general public... thus you get CNN. nothing bad, just not that good.
it's not generalizing if you cite concrete facts like the crime rate. it's clear information. just listing random crimes, cherry picking aside, tells you nothing of the state of things and can make you think crime is everywhere. It literally has no purpose but to decieve.... unless they cover EVERY crime in their scope like local news, but who is going to list and or read a nation wide daily accounting from coast to coast?
it's fake news
as I said, CNN isn't the highest quality news. the segment didn't demonize either side (unlike every article on fox) but it was pretty worthless. I believe fox is considered to be the highest quality right wing news source (which is sad as I tried to demonstrate), do you believe CNN is the pinnacle of the mainstream press?
I'm not sure if your criticism was in that paragraph and I missed it, but yes, id love to hear it.
on the Russia coverage, I'm a bit unsure if that was hypothetical if when all the investigations conclude, or if your referring to the conclusion of the never relevant house investigation which even don Jr himself called a sham looking for hot quotes.
my answer will obviously be different depending. Russia was funding fake news on both, but it was also focusing on trump significantly more. was it collusion? was it the fact that people wanted to read about him? was it both? #2 is a definite.
Supposing there is an issue with policy, it should be covered, and policy would be debated on considering who is the current administration and if you agree with it. In that case, would it be possible for me to make a criticism of CNN's coverage if it is not only their right, but necessary for journalism? I am really reaching for common ground here not based on the weight of the story but consequence.
Let's say this. I believe that the final decision on the Russia investigation has been no collusion, unless it gets reopened. It would be no surprise if I say that coverage has been unfair, those under investigation have been since before the election, Russia was found funding BOTH political party ads (destabilizing much like the CIA?). Certainly you would say different, but when it comes down to it democrat's will continue the investigation and Republicans will deny it. I could say with the results as it has closed that it is was unfair as nothing came of it, but I know it doesn't restore confidence for one side politically.
You make a valid observation about the possible interpretation of local news. However, isn't it also easy to make generalizations when you also use general information rather than specific? We see people sensationalize a topic when it is one instance but in many instances listed at once it becomes many things to dispute. For example, I believe I have disputed with you Van Jones' categorization of Trump's victory a whitelash. Did white people vote overwhelmingly? Yes, but they are a large part of the voting population, and the suggestion shouldn't construed as racist, both candidates were white!
And to cover the expert, I still want to know why an expert would be brought in if the laymen's terms they used were not layman's terms. Perhaps I could agree with a doctor using 'blood sugar" instead of the technical term, but he had plenty of chances to use a layman term, and in the most obvious case instead of fire rate said "fully-semi", which was not an impressive rate in terms of most civilian grade guns. He describes the guns in a hyperbolic, imagery enhanced detail (in head out ass), and his stance is terrible. I would understand dumbing it down, but I would have to assume CNN isn't considering their audience for it to be that bad.
Now I'm sure that his opinion that responsible gun owners should be able to own them is fair, but the statement works off of a tautological idea (that should is already fair, back to deciding how to know).
the problem with local news on a national network is because there should be far more local news all over the nation for a single news source to cover. leaving the network open to accusations of cherry picking and misrepresenting reality (by only reporting crimes of certain groups). it's perfectly fine to be interested in local news, that's what local news stations are for.
technical language is meant to be used within the profession. you wouldn't want your doctor coming in and explaining your results in what sounds like a foreign language. you want him to explain it in words you can understand... but you do want to hear it from him and not the janitor. a layperson wouldn't have the right information, but the information is irrelevant if the target can't understand it.
the technicality of the words are irrelevant to the accuracy. telling someone they have low blood sugar is the same as telling them they have hypoglycemia. if an expert can't explain something in layman terms, he probably doesn't really understand it. I do believe there was valid controversy regarding a statement that it was a 2 minute cut of a 2 hour interview. that could have been a time thing, and they did include him saying he supports this gun's ownership in responsible hands.
I wouldn't call fox fluff. CNN is fluff. they have plenty of useless stories. none of the fox personal attacks, with the exception of obsessive coverage of Trump. I'm not saying they are giving him unfair coverage, id like to see 1 example of unfair coverage. I'm saying at this point it should be expected and more important, policy reporting should be center stage.
Not to defend fox, but that really isn't the focus either and it isn't the coverage we are looking for either. Local news against international events? That's just interests, and not really an indicator. But I get what your saying, substance rather than fluff pieces.
I chose the Sanders article not on the current words in it but the fact that they have changed the article for the wording. I thought to choose a subject that might have a bit worth persuading in terms of choosing favorable coverage against an already fine article, which does make one wonder at least why the edit would happen. I won't pursue it though.
I won't pursue the rescue either, it appeared to be the same person but the possibility that it wasn't means I couldn't defend it if I wanted to. I don't, though I would also say that wardrobe edits can happen and the reason would only be known to a film crew, not a sarcastic response but there is a need to address points when made.
As for the professional interview, why bring in a professional when they would provide a layman's guide? A professional should be brought in for insight. Also, because the AR is civilian grade, was created civilian grade, it is not standard issue. I do not doubt any gun has not been in a war, from puckle to potato gun, perhaps a rebel forces group aquired some in a 3rd world country or it was difficult to get ahold of. This still isn't considering his firing stance, how much weaker the weapon is (if anything, bullet numbers over power, I know capacity is a hot topic), all of it sounds very misinformed.
If I were to make any point, I wouldn't say that CNN lies, creates baseless attacks (baseless is always subject to our own biases, and I know we've had a few discussions on this), or even vaguely reports. The issue would be an underlying interpretation of opinions as facts.
I believe a while ago we discussed the same topic on CNN, and while I shouldn't bring all those topics to this particular discussion, I would like to open the table to a question. At what point is layman's terms lying, and when does coverage require intervention on the news reporter's side for a coherent story?
I believe the snopes article stated that it was clearly a different person in the footage. also the rescue involved water so I would want to change afterwards.
if it was staged? why would they change pants?
the soldier's audience are not technical, why would he start using technical speech? they stated that they used to be used in war, and that it currently isnt.
but the sanders article showed accurate positive and negatives, mentioning specific facts like his accomplishments and how big they were, as well as perfectly understandable reasons why they weren't so big, he want mainstream and didn't have broad support to pass his bills. it didn't even come across as negative.
the mayor article was a barrage of negativity citing a few random citizens without even mentioning if that was a majority opinion, without anything more then anecdotes to support it.
look at the headlines on fox news. it's all either a political attack on various democrats, or a local crime story. CNN is full of international events, what bills Congress is discuss, studies related to the national opioid crisis. actual news.
they do have a ton of material against the president, but it can be said it's all valid, although really shouldn't be news by now (sad). cashing in on trump is one reason CNN isn't top quality. but it is valid news leaps and bounds above fox news nonsense.
.Before disputing anything, I suppose I should clarify something. News sources would be expected to be biased, from what I understand no person should be exempt from criticism so a particular aim or report would be to persuade any abuses. But to decide an abuse, the facts do not give us this, moral measures do. I do not have a printer with someone saying that a morally bankrupt act is happening, I would want evidence too. However, it is possible to suggest a moral measure as a fact. That is why I picked the Bernie Sanders article and the video, not because of what was said but it's presentation. The presentation either suggests opinion as fact or it is revised like the Bernie article was. It is not what they said afterwards, but that they changed to support another political figure.
I would not deny that the fox article was as much of a hit piece, I did say journalistic integrity is on the decline and comparing for something less broken just doesn't fix it. I remember that the issue cited was during the Puerto Rico crisis, and that supplies sent were not being efficiently delivered. Whether the blame should be in Puerto Rico's government is not something I could say, even if they received the supplies.
As for the rescue clip, on further investigation there were possible explanations that I cannot deny for a crew member seemingly changing pants to shorts. I originally saw it and thought this, so when others noticed it was possible it would confirm this idea. However, I cannot stand by that confidently or argue it if they were two different crew members
The Ar15 interview can be found here
It does not seem like technical terms we're used at all, his stance is unusual for his experience, and the choices for his terminology suggests the weapon is military grade rather than civilian. Perhaps a personal judgement could be made on if it should be, but how often ar15s are actually used in war is much fewer and much weaker than "out his ass" or "maximum damage" even in hyperbole.
forgot to add to the Sanders part.
the loner, refusing to build coalitions aspect of his is why I thought he wouldn't be good for the executive branch. And probably the biggest reason I picked Hillary over him. More important then his less realistic goals. I thought he would be completely ineffective. that article was on point with all its criticisms.
I spotted several interviews between Mark and CNN, I guess he's a regular. I'm not sure which one your referring to.
however the anchor saving a person appears to be real and the idea that it was staged was promoted mostly by sites like infowars. I'm inclined to believe it was an actual rescue and not some fake stunt.
if it was not staged, then that complaint against CNN isn't really valid, and it still seems to be a completely legitamete news source. If you still feel it was staged, id like to hear why.
I'd also like to see an example of a nyt "hit piece." uncovering legitamete corruption or wrong doing is what media is supposed to do and not doing "hit pieces" is like allowing the powerful to act with impunity. whether it was a propaganda hit piece or legitamete journalism will depend on context. I'm confident NYT, and CNN will be legitamete.
as for the Sanders piece. it seems legitamete to me. He is a loner, didn't support or build any sort of coalition for his presidency, even those who were name dropping his name for their local campaigns. He also didn't have big legislations because he was left of most of the democrats in Congress, and it mentioned his numerous smaller victories. it seemed like a honest assessment of his pro and cons. what news is supposed to do.
in comparison we can see a potential "hit piece" as part of the top story right now on foxnews.com
a literal one sided attack with zero balance. blaming her for doing what all politicians are required to do, showmanship. cause all the good intentions don't matter if you don't get elected. while at the same time explaining away an admitted list of hard work as "feud with trump" while the article directly above it (these are 1st and 2nd after the headline) states further fault from FEMAs, which is under direction of Trump. meaning feuding with him is exactly what she should be doing.
that's a hit piece
... Thanks najam? This sounds a lot like Indian call centers that are made to scam people, and isn't necessary speaking to the willingness to cut corners but it's an acceptable opinion. Plenty of jobs try to peddle legal forms of scamming, and I don't think it is the ultimate goal of journalism. This isn't to say the truth that journalism has declined because the methods must meet the markets desires. What publications would encourage viewership? ,What encourages people to spread news first heard by ___? It's a bit of social engineering no doubt, and every business does this, to say just the facts is a lie like scamming and short of making (everything) up.
From some perspectives, that isn't even fake news, but I'm hoping we can agree that an entertainment approach is considered with a skew.
Paid professional career liars. The employee turnover rate at many places is too low. People are afraid to lose their jobs and the system is designed as to a person not being able to start a new career the same day he leaves one. By trapping employees in one career, it's easy to threaten them with loss of job if they won't tell lies they are being paid for.
I would argue that CNN's presentation of the facts that it uses has a bias, and because they do not disclose and make clear that they have a 'bid' in the translation of the facts is misleading. Combine misleading with mock interviews and incorrect information, and you might believe for a minute that you are watching reality.
I would advise going onto YouTube and checking CNN's own interview with Mark Hertling, then making a note if you see something unusual, or wrong. It would be easy to assume from the comments that people are getting hung up over a possibly flubed comment, it does not seem as though we are looking at a professional at all. There was also the time that CNN had their anchor "save" an elderly man in a truck during the most recent hurricane season.
I pick these cases because it is easier to say that they were ignorant of a fact or that they are willing to correct people. However, if things have to be staged in a way that plays out like judge Judy, I would have to wonder if that is reality. We can discuss factual errors, but we would need a standard for saying what they should be able to know and what a correction should look like.
Infowars suffers from the same problem in a different way. It is well known that Alex Jones is a personality played on screen, and he has testified this in court. A personality or a scenario, which would you rather have as "fake"?
The New York Times isn't nearly as bad, though they do clearly make "hit pieces" that either attack with no journalistic intention or grossly misinterpret the facts. Say that what you may about Republican figures, but they also did a clear heel turn on Bernie Sanders and changed an article on his portrayal. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/us/politics/bernie-sanders-amendments.html?_r=0&referer= Revisionist? siding with another player?
They recently had articles about the new tax season saying certain middle income brackets would pay thousands. Their math was wrong, and this past tax season gave money back.
Yeah, I know that that is the perspective of CNN pushed by the pres and right wing media. I'm asking for examples cause I think that perspective is the fake news.
SHOW me how fake CNN and NYT are, and I'll compare it to a few examples from fox and breitbart. cause this nonsense needs dispelling.
CNN has a self proclaimed liberal bias and is known for reporting fake or staged news to fit said liberal bias.
I'm Canadian so I don't watch or read a whole lot of American news. I would be interested to see what, if anything, is wrong with CNN.