CNN staff say network’s pro-Israel slant amounts to ‘journalistic malpractice’
Insiders say pressure from the top results in credulous reporting of Israeli claims and silencing of Palestinian perspectives
You're viewing a single thread.
Why the hell does anyone watch CNN anymore? They have a right wing slant but Republicans think it's so far left it's practically communist.
So who is watching it?
Every Boomer I have ever known has had a TV with a news station on just running in the background of their lives at home.
You go into their home, the TV is always on. They aren't necessarily watching it but they have that shit rolling 24 hours a day.
As of 2021, roughly 56% of US citizens still have a Cable TV subscription. Those numbers continue to drop, but plenty of Boomers still have that TV on and running all damn day long.
CNN's actual viewership numbers are abysmal compared to FOX News and MSNBC.
https://deadline.com/2023/12/cable-news-ratings-2023-1235682966/
CNN posted 582,000, down 19%
Ouch, in a country of 350 million people, CNN can barely pull half a million people who give a shit about their broadcast.
Ouch, in a country of 350 million people, CNN can barely pull half a million people who give a shit about their broadcast.
I don't have cable so I don't know... who the fuck is willing to advertise to a national audience that small? You could spend less money and have more reach on a radio station in one city.
man my parents constantly have CNN on in the background and i have no idea how they havent gone completely crazy hearing whatever the pundits are talking about all day. Not to mention the same like, 3 ads over and over again
I will turn it on during the day because for actual news events, they're better than MSNBC or Fox.
It's when the opinion engine kicks in that they're useless.
I guess with dozens of different internet sources at my disposal now, I don't trust any big corporate news network to really give me a good picture of news events, even breaking ones, because at the end of the day, they're beholden to their corporate masters who demand that even stories that should be straight up news don't do anything to harm anyone that might make them money.
That is something I do love about NPR and PBS. They have no problem criticizing their corporate funders and freely admit that they get funding from that corporation in a story that criticizes them.
Oh, NPR and PBS are absolutely solid, but you have to wait for them to get around to covering something, if they bother at all. :(
Right now, turning on my local PBS station it's...
Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me... which is fine, but it's not news. :)
Weekends are not very newsy on public radio, it's true. But the weekday NPR stream is Morning Edition, which is basic news, 1A, which is more in-depth about current events with an attempt to be unbiased about it. Admittedly, they also do an hour of Fresh Air, but I would say the rest counts as news. And my station often breaks in if there's something major going on.
https://www.npr.org/about-npr/472557877/npr-program-stream
I also think a lot of the things that channels like CNN put up as breaking news just aren't. Even when they seem like they are.
I guess also because I grew up in the pre-CNN era, I don't feel I need to know everything the second it happens. I mean it can be interesting, but if I don't find out about it until 12 hours later, it's not a big deal a good 90% of the time.
What I miss is Headline News. Turn on a channel, any time of the day or night, and get the equivalent of a 30 minute network newscast.
I agree. That was excellent. Originally anyway. Then it changed to 'HN' and had regular programming and does it even exist now?
HLN exists as a channel, but as near as I can tell it's all true crime bullshit now.
"Look at this horrible thing this asshole got away with... OR DID HE!!?!? Was he actually innocent all along? Or is he even MORE twisted than anyone imagined!!! Tune in to find out!"
It's 24 hour propaganda. There's never a time when CNN isn't injecting their opinions and bias into a story.
Right wing? That's the first time I've ever heard anyone call CNN right wing.
Even media bias fact check says otherwise. Am I missing something?
Yes you are missing something. You're missing, for example, how CNN had GOP debates where they allowed people like DeSantis and Ramaswamy to spew their talking points unchallenged.
But airing a candidate debate is not a right-wing thing. Since when (in the last 20 years at least) has anything right-wing allowed debates from both major sides in the American political spectrum? Making an attempt to be fair is a centrist or Left-wing thing. If anything, that would further prove my point.
I can't debate this as I don't watch any news channels, but are you able to counter what Media Bias Fact Check (which, as far as I have seen is extremely accurate and vets their information) states, or is this a case that people on the extreme sides of any political movement see anything even slightly closer to the centre as "the other side?"
You must know that a debate between a bunch of Republican candidates that didn't include Trump was a pointless effort that only allowed Republican talking points to be aired unquestioned. There was absolutely no non right-wing reason to have that debate. None.
I would even argue that it wasn't pointless. Trump is certainly the biggest candidate for the Right, but there are plenty of things that could get in his way at the moment.
And "hearing them out" is a way to show that you're not just unfairly maligning them and keeping them down by keeping them out of media that you don't want to see. It's also helping to split the Right, which is INCREDIBLY valuable.
Just because you can't think of a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.
How about "hearing them out" and then not pointing out all the lies they told?
Because that's what happened.
Was there a fact-checker at the last Democratic primaries? If not, then why would there be a double standard?
And I think you may be mistaken about what these debates exist to do. They aren't there to "check facts" and make sure everyone only has correct opinions (which I would argue that even some on Democratic side do not have). They are there to show what the candidates believe, how they behave, and how they respond to pressure. They show how they act in front of a crowd, and how they respond later to missteps during the debates. In effect, they show a good public face for judging a politician.
The simple fact is that you aren't going to have every fact going into, say, a negotiation with China - you have to think on your feet.
Primaries are where people vote for a candidate. There are no debates. And there have been no debates this election season with Democrats, so I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
And you're also talking about the candidates at the CNN debate as if they had a chance against Trump. May I remind you that all but one has already dropped out and did so after a single primary?
I misused a term, my apologies (I'm Canadian and my terminology was a little off). I was using Democratic Primaries in place of whatever the Democrats have as a candidate debate session like this was for the Republicans. If you let me know what it's called, I'll correct my post! Regardless of the name, did they have a fact checker there at that event?
Again, I don't believe the candidates have a chance against Trump UNLESS he is rejected as a candidate by enough states or other lawsuits have results that prevent him from running. If those do occur, then it will have been useful because it's not like the Republicans are just going to not field a candidate. Also as I mentioned, if a candidate has a strong base that really believes in them, sometimes they won't vote for the person that beat "their" candidate, thus splitting the vote. This is a good thing from the opposite side.
It's also a good thing because they're abiding by the Equal-Time Rule (essentially an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine).
None of them have a chance because all but one of them dropped out and the one who didn't drop out is a woman of color.
Also, the Equal-Time rule applies to broadcast stations. CNN is a cable station. The FCC has no jurisdiction over it.
Do you think maybe because you're Canadian that you might not actually know how it works in the U.S.?
It's more accurate to describe CNN as "Fox News for Centrists".