CNN: More Fake News

[Mountain Man]

When I see you posting the false stories posted by the likes of Brietbart or Fox et. al., then maybe I'll take you seriously, but you don't, and that is tantamount to defending them. You supposed concern for fake news is BS., you don't really even understand what fake news is.

Feel free to start your own thread featuring Breitbart stories that are factually and demonstrably wrong.

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm 2 hours in on that Jeopardy video.
It is kind of catchy.

[rogue06]

The term "fake news" was created to describe the sharing of articles on Facebook written by one-man-show satirists and exploiters, many from countries like Macedonia or Georgia, who made up stories to get ad revenue. These stories were especially, but not exclusively, popular with conservatives, including conservative reporters and politicians. Now fake news is used by conservatives to label any article critical of their cause, or more specifically, the president. Notice the sudden decrying of anonymous sources even though they have been used for as long as news media has existed. They are just as trustworthy as they always have been. Notice people talking about fake news on CNN while using Breitbart or Fox as their primary news vehicle. All news media is beholden to ulterior motives, as Starlight has explained, and turning to outlets that, through a dearth, can unabashedly become propaganda outlets, is hypocritical.

Here is a couple posts that I put up about a year ago discussing one of the most prominent "ulterior motives":

Some of those in the MSM quite openly admit to a liberal bias.

I'll never forget how then Newsweek editor Evan Thomas nonchalantly admitted to liberal bias on the now defunct Inside Washington show on PBS saying that it was worth up to 15 points For John Kerry in his bid to be president in 2004^[1]

Speaking of Newsweek this little gem from USA Today founder Al Neuharth from a 2011 column is worth noting:

"When Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post, it was predictably left-wing, but it was accurate. Under Tina Brown, it is an inaccurate and unfair left-wing propaganda machine."

Here are just a few of a whole lot of such admissions that I collected over the years:

• "I think we are aware, as everyone who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true.” --Emily Rooney while “ABC World News Tonight” Executive Producer

• "Of course there’s a liberal bias in the news. All the networks tilt left." --Andrew Heyward while CBS News President

• "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions. We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat." --Marie Arana, editor of the Washington Post’s “Book Word”

• "Well it’s there and it doesn’t show itself in everything that is printed or broadcast but it is there." --David Brinkley, news broadcast icon discussing Liberal Bias on CNBC back in 1995. Many would argue that it is much worse now

• "I’ll give you that a lot of the media is liberal. In fact, I think that’s probably a gimme." --Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, CNBC “Power Lunch” co-host, while interviewing Ann Coulter

• "I don’t know if it’s 95 percent...[but] there are enough [liberals] in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction....It’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake." -- ABC News political director Mark Halperin in 2006

• "Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me." -- Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter (who was also an Executive Vice President of the CBS Broadcast Group)

• "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I’m consistently liberal in my opinions” … and that CBS anchorman “Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal” who “should be more careful.” --Andy Rooney, the late long time lovable curmudgeon on “60 Minutes”

• "Could anyone deny that most Washington reporters tend to move more aggressively to bring down Republicans in trouble than Democrats in trouble?” --ABC News’ political unit (Mark Halperin, Marc Ambinder, David Chalian and Brooke Brower), in a 2003 “The Note” column.

• "Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed. -- New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent and proud Democrat in a 2004 column asking, "Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?"^[2]

• "Everyone knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.” --Walter Cronkite, former CBS Evening News anchor and news legend (widely regarded as being responsible for turning the American public against the Vietnam War). This was a view he would express again and again up until his death in 2009^[3]

• "Many in the media have been one-sided, sometimes adding to Obama's distortions rather than acting as impartial reporters of fact and referees of the mud fights.... We hear a lot less about Democratic sins such as President Clinton's distortions of Bob Dole's position on Medicare in 1996 and the NAACP's stunningly scurrilous ad campaign in 2000 associating George W. Bush's opposition to a hate crimes bill with the racist murderers who dragged James Byrd behind a truck." -- Stuart Taylor while at National Journal and now Senior Fellow in Governance Studies at the liberal Brookings Institution

I should add that recently during a panel discussion at the left-leaning POLITICO's Playbook Breakfast with the New York Times' Peter Baker and Mark Leibovich, NBC's Kelly O'Donnell and CNN's Jake Tapper they unanimously agreed that the news media leans to the left.


Not surprising that it exists considering that several polls and surveys of those in the MSM find that they are far to the left of the American public. Well over 90% are pro-abortion whereas the country is much more evenly split with a majority even favoring limitations (something the MSM staunchly opposes). The same is true with nearly all social issues and things like gun control.

As a 2004 editorial in the “Dallas Morning News” entitled “Unvarnished Truth?: Perception of bias undermines media,” the editorial staff admitted that, "it’s time we in the Fourth Estate admit that the liberal media isn’t a figment of Rush Limbaugh’s imagination. Studies by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Knight Foundation have shown that, on average, journalists are much more politically and culturally liberal and secular than their readers."

And again citing Evan Thomas on this

"There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstratable. You look at the statistics. About 85% of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. Particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for – most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the Upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias."

This seems inevitable when several polls of reporters covering national news and politics, bureau chiefs and editors consistently found that self described liberals and Democrats outnumber conservatives and Republicans by between 7 and 12 to 1 in the newsroom (depending on when the poll was conducted) but all show the gap widening in recent years with at least 90% voting Democrat in elections.













1. "Let’s talk about media bias here. The media, I think, want Kerry to win. They’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic, and this glow is going to be worth maybe 15 points."

2. Okrent would go on to describe the editorial page as being "thoroughly saturated in liberal theology," as well as the Sunday magazine, Arts and Leisure front page, culture pages, fashion coverage, Styles section, Sports section, and Metro section. OHe wrote that finding a culturally conservative view in The Times was like a creationist trying to find “comfort in Science Times,” and accuses the paper of negligence.

3. At one point he even pontificated that "I think most newspapermen, by definition, have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen."

And

A couple more quotes from members of the MSM...

• "It would be on "Frontline" tonight. It would be a documentary already. If [it was] Newt Gingrich, it would be on the front page of the “Globe” every single day since this happened; but because it was a bureaucratic snafu [laughs], it’s not much of a story." --Mike Barnicle while with the "Boston Globe" and now frequent contributor and guest on MSNBC, on the "Leher News Hour" on PBS during the first week of the "Filegate" scandal, in response to the question: "Do you agree with the Republicans when they say that if it was a bunch of Republicans, everyone would be all over them like a blanket?"

• "Oh, my God. Are you kidding? That George W. Bush was a crybaby, that he was the spoiled son of a failed president. You know, you could just hear the personal attacks on Bush would be just absolutely vicious." --Howard Fineman, while Newsweek's Chief Political Correspondent and Deputy Washington Bureau Chief, admitting that things would have been very different if the 2000 post-election results were reversed and Bush was contesting a Gore victory.

• "Having spent time in...both the Hillary and the Trump bubble, I will tell you that...the reporters who are following around Hillary -- a lot of them are Hillary fans. They're just in awe of her. They're very patient with her....with the Trump people, it's a feeding frenzy...[they] are the most aggressive ones; the ones who they hope will dig up the one piece of dirt that will -- you know, kill the Trump monster" --David Martosko of the Daily Mail

• "No person with eyes in his head in 2008 could have failed to see the way that soft coverage helped to propel Obama first to the Democratic nomination and then into the White House." --New York Magazine political reporter John Heilemann

• "The mainstream press is liberal.... [T]he press corps at such institutions as the Washington Post, ABC-NBC-CBS News, the NYT, the Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, etc. is composed in large part of 'new' or 'creative' class members of the liberal elite.... If reporters were the only ones allowed to vote, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, and John Kerry would have won the White House by landslide margins." --Thomas Edsall veteran Washington Post political reporter in an essay for the Columbia Journalism Review, called "Journalism Should Own Its Liberalism."

To focus in on an example of how slanted the MSM's reporting is in favor of liberals and Democrats take a look at how slow to pick up on controversy surrounding Obama’s Green Jobs Czar Van Jones and the videos showing ACORN employees assisting a supposed pimp and prostitute in hiding their income and arranging for underage girls to be smuggled into the country to be used as prostitutes.

In writing about the MSM's reluctance to cover these stories Washington Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander mentions a likely reason: “Why the tardiness? One explanation may be that traditional news outlets like The Post simply don't pay sufficient attention to conservative media or viewpoints." It "can't be discounted," said Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, noting that "Complaints by conservatives are slower to be picked up" by the liberal MSM because "there are not enough conservatives and too many liberals in most newsrooms. They just don't see the resonance of these issues. They don't hear about them as fast [and] they're not naturally watching as much."

Washington Post Executive Editor Marcus Brauchli said he worried "that we are not well-enough informed about conservative issues. It's particularly a problem in a town so dominated by Democrats and the Democratic point of view."

And on writing about the New York Times dismal coverage of the ACORN scandals and the Van Jones resignation, the paper’s Public Editor Clark Hoyt criticized them for "looking clueless or, worse, partisan itself" especially since when the Times finally got around to it the emphasis was about Republicans trying to dig up dirt to damage Obama: “Conservatives Draw Blood From Acorn, Favored Foe.” According to Hoyt, “Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was ‘slow off the mark,’ and blamed ‘insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.’”


Then there was the JournoList (a private Google Groups message board for discussing politics and the news media established by Ezra Klein who limited participation to several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics saying he excluded conservatives to keep conversations from degenerating into flame wars) incident in 2010 when it was revealed they they were discussing ways of explaining away or outright ignoring stories that were detrimental to Obama. One of their primary goals appears to be to kill stories about Jeremiah Wright, Obama's radical, racist pastor for 20 years and who Obama praised in his memoirs and early campaign speeches

Obama also credited Wright with introducing him to his Christian faith

The contributors were obsessed with finding ways of killing the Wright story, as it was reflecting negatively on Barack Obama. Chris Hayes, a top editor for The Nation and host of a daily program on MSNBC, encouraged his colleagues to avoid covering Wright because talking about it at all would hurt Obama. Spencer Ackerman, one time associate editor at the New Republic and then part of the American Independent Institute (which funds liberal investigative journalism efforts which, as they say, exposes "the nexus of conservative power in Washington") went further making the following suggestion:

"If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them -- Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares -- and call them racists"

And right after John McCain nominated Sarah Palin to be his running mate members of JurnoList had only one concern -- how to take her down. The tone was more campaign headquarters than newsroom.

"Okay, let’s get deadly serious, folks," Ed Kilgore of the Washington Monthly wrote. "Sarah Palin’s just been introduced to the country as a brave, above-party, oil-company-bashing, pork-hating maverick ‘outsider.’ What we can do is to expose her ideology."

Daniel Levy of the Century Foundation noted that Obama’s “non-official campaign” would need to work hard to discredit Palin.

"This seems to me like an occasion when the non-official campaign has a big role to play in defining Palin, shaping the terms of the conversation and saying things that the official [Obama] campaign shouldn’t say – very hard-hitting stuff, including some of the things that people have been noting here – scare people about having this woefully inexperienced, no foreign policy/national security/right-wing christia wing-nut a heartbeat away ... bang away at McCain’s age making this unusually significant ... I think people should be replicating some of the not-so-pleasant viral email campaigns that were used against [Obama]."

Suzanne Nossel, the executive director of PEN American Center, which ironically purports to defend free expression by writers and others (as long as they are conservative I guess) made the following suggestion: "I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views."^[1]

Jonathan Stein then with Mother Jones was giddy about this approach writing: "That’s excellent! If enough people -- people on this list? -- write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket."

Nick Baumann, then senior editor with Mother Jones and now senior enterprise editor at Huffington Post added: "Say it with me: ‘Classic GOP Tokenism’."

Chris Hayes, a writer for The Nation, wrote: "Keep the ideas coming! Have to go on TV to talk about this in a few min and need all the help I can get."

I think it is pretty clear that these journalists and their friends were acting as an unofficial wing of the Obama campaign. After all it wasn't uncommon for them to portray him as some sort of Messiah figure.

Who could ever forget when Newsweek editor Evan Thomas declared to on MSNBC's "Hardball" to host Chris Matthews (who notoriously once said that he felt a “thrill up his leg” while covering then-Senator Barack Obama): "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Ezra Klein (the aforementioned founder of JurnoList) gushed about Obama in The American Prospect that, “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.”

And then there was Mark Morford, columnist and culture critic for the San Francisco Chronicle and SFGate.com, remarks about Obama "isn’t really one of us" and how "many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."














1. Let's see if the left takes that tact as Hillary keeps relying strongly on the fact that she's a woman as the reason women should vote for her (her husband's Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, even suggested that women who don't support Hillary are earning "a special place in Hell.")

There are a few more recent instances where members of the MSM have frankly admitted that they have a decidedly liberal tilt such as

• Will Rahn, political correspondent and managing editor of politics for CBS News Digital, wrote a piece fittingly called "The unbearable smugness of the press" in which he said:
  
  "It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on."
  
  He went on to absolutely excoriate the MSM for their coverage of the 2016 election and how they treated voters saying
  
  "That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong. As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency."
  
  And
  
  "What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline."
• Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist for The Washington Post wrote a piece called "The media didn’t want to believe Trump could win. So they looked the other way" where she reached similar conclusions and noted the bias
  
  "Journalists – college-educated, urban and, for the most part, liberal – are more likely than ever before to live and work in New York City and Washington, D.C., or on the West Coast. And although we touched down in the big red states for a few days, or interviewed some coal miners or unemployed autoworkers in the Rust Belt, we didn’t take them seriously. Or not seriously enough."
• Over at the New York Times Jim Rutenberg, the "mediator" at the paper and formerly a political correspondent there made similar remarks writing that it is "clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism" and acknowledged that it's "amazing is how many times the news media has missed the populist movements that have been rocking national politics since at least 2008" due to their bias.
  
  Prior to this he had acknowledged that "balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy" but actually sought to justify the MSM's opposition.
  
• Jeff Zucker, the current president and CEO of CNN Worldwide, told the Wall Street Journal last year that "I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was too liberal" but claims they were changing
  
• During the 2016 campaign Glenn Greenwald, which Newsweek described as being widely considered as one of the most influential opinion columnists in the U.S., told Slate that "the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president"

In close I'll add a couple links to two good articles the first providing examples of undeniable liberal bias in the media during the election and the second discussing the history of such bias:

Mainstream media maligned: 10 examples of blatant bias

Liberal bias in the media traced back to 1964

[rogue06]

This is the kind of stuff that can take down a network...

Doubt it. NBC seemed to weather the deliberate editing George Zimmerman to make him say something entirely different than what he said in his 911 call.

[Meh Gerbil]

Doubt it. NBC seemed to weather the deliberate editing George Zimmerman to make him say something entirely different than what he said in his 911 call.

That wasn't fake news because... um... racism!

[rogue06]

That wasn't fake news because... um... racism!

Dang-blasted white Hispanics smiley fist shake.gif

[rogue06]

Here is a couple posts that I put up about a year ago discussing one of the most prominent "ulterior motives":

And

There are a few more recent instances where members of the MSM have frankly admitted that they have a decidedly liberal tilt such as

• Will Rahn, political correspondent and managing editor of politics for CBS News Digital, wrote a piece fittingly called "The unbearable smugness of the press" in which he said:
  
  "It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone that, with a few exceptions, we were all tacitly or explicitly #WithHer, which has led to a certain anguish in the face of Donald Trump’s victory. More than that and more importantly, we also missed the story, after having spent months mocking the people who had a better sense of what was going on."
  
  He went on to absolutely excoriate the MSM for their coverage of the 2016 election and how they treated voters saying
  
  "That the explainers and data journalists so frequently get things hilariously wrong never invites the soul-searching you’d think it would. Instead, it all just somehow leads us to more smugness, more meanness, more certainty from the reporters and pundits. Faced with defeat, we retreat further into our bubble, assumptions left unchecked. No, it’s the voters who are wrong. As a direct result, we get it wrong with greater frequency."
  
  And
  
  "What’s worse, we don’t make much of an effort to really understand, and with too few exceptions, treat the economic grievances of Middle America like they’re some sort of punchline."
• Margaret Sullivan, the media columnist for The Washington Post wrote a piece called "The media didn’t want to believe Trump could win. So they looked the other way" where she reached similar conclusions and noted the bias
  
  "Journalists – college-educated, urban and, for the most part, liberal – are more likely than ever before to live and work in New York City and Washington, D.C., or on the West Coast. And although we touched down in the big red states for a few days, or interviewed some coal miners or unemployed autoworkers in the Rust Belt, we didn’t take them seriously. Or not seriously enough."
• Over at the New York Times Jim Rutenberg, the "mediator" at the paper and formerly a political correspondent there made similar remarks writing that it is "clear that something was fundamentally broken in journalism" and acknowledged that it's "amazing is how many times the news media has missed the populist movements that have been rocking national politics since at least 2008" due to their bias.
  
  Prior to this he had acknowledged that "balance has been on vacation since Mr. Trump stepped onto his golden Trump Tower escalator last year to announce his candidacy" but actually sought to justify the MSM's opposition.
  
• Jeff Zucker, the current president and CEO of CNN Worldwide, told the Wall Street Journal last year that "I think it was a legitimate criticism of CNN that it was too liberal" but claims they were changing
  
• During the 2016 campaign Glenn Greenwald, which Newsweek described as being widely considered as one of the most influential opinion columnists in the U.S., told Slate that "the U.S. media is essentially 100 percent united, vehemently, against Trump, and preventing him from being elected president"

In close I'll add a couple links to two good articles the first providing examples of undeniable liberal bias in the media during the election and the second discussing the history of such bias:

Mainstream media maligned: 10 examples of blatant bias

Liberal bias in the media traced back to 1964

Adding one more from today.

In Politico Mitchell Stephens, a professor of journalism at New York University, wrote a piece called "Goodbye Nonpartisan Journalism. And Good Riddance" in which he celebrates the complete dropping of the pretense of being unbiased by the MSM noting that

What’s more significant is how the political world’s encounter with Trump is changing our most respected journalism organizations—including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the network evening newscasts and CNN.

He goes on to write that

The big news is that many of our best journalists seem, in news coverage, not just opinion pieces, to be moving away from balance and nonpartisanship.

Stephens declares that abandoning the sham that they're impartial and objective "is long overdue," and "How refreshing it is to see mainstream journalists beginning to realize that they no longer need pretend."

[Starlight]

One of my complaints about the MSM in the US is that they have traditionally taken Republican lies far too seriously. For decades, they would repeat "Republicans say X, Democrats say Y" with the implication being that they themselves had no idea which was true and that there was no way of telling, when in reality any well-informed person would know that X was a whopper of a lie and Y was true.

They strove strenuously to be seen as 'unbiased' and 'nonpartisan' and people like Anderson Cooper would say things like "I don't vote and I don't think any journalists should" with the implication that this makes the journalist non-biased. My view is that they should be doing the opposite of that: The journalists actually meet and talk to the politicians regularly, they have teams of fact-checkers at their service to tell them true from false, if anyone in the entire country is in a position to know which party to vote for it's the journalists themselves. They know which politicians work hard for the people and believe what they say, and they know which politicians are full of it and are dishonest. If anyone's in a position to vote informedly, it's journalists. They are in a position where they know more than anyone else, and it's their duty to share what they know with the country. It is not their duty to always call it 50-50 or present statements by politicians they know to be true and statements they know to be false to the viewers as if they were both equally valid statements.

I'm glad Trump has finally made the MSM in America realize they can't keep that false neutrality, and have to actually stand up for the truth and say things like "this politician keeps lying".

I agree with Mitchell Stephens that this change "is long overdue". I don't, however, agree with Rogue that the media ought to be extra nice to Republicans, when the current Republican party is off the rails. It is entirely fair for the media to be on the side of facts and sanity: Thus they ought to support the Democrats. The US media's failure to do so for the past couple of decades, and their ongoing pretense to the public that what the Republican party was saying was just as valid as what the democrats were saying, has caused America to become the utterly screwed up nation that it is now.

[Darth Executor]

lol the average journalist can't butter a side of toast, you'd have to be braindead to think they're well informed about anything.

[Starlight]

lol the average journalist can't butter a side of toast, you'd have to be braindead to think they're well informed about anything.

That is indeed a major problem with US journalism. The media outlets deliberately take informed people off the air, and put on people like Wolf Blitzer.

CNN actually runs two news channels - an international one, and an American one. They put intelligent well-informed journalists on their international one, and it's a decent channel. Their American one is a joke. So it's not like they don't know how to run a decent channel, they simply choose to put useless people on their US channel because they have certain goals with regard to the US market.

[rogue06]

That is indeed a major problem with US journalism. The media outlets deliberately take informed people off the air, and put on people like Wolf Blitzer.

CNN actually runs two news channels - an international one, and an American one. They put intelligent well-informed journalists on their international one, and it's a decent channel. Their American one is a joke. So it's not like they don't know how to run a decent channel, they simply choose to put useless people on their US channel because they have certain goals with regard to the US market.

I've seen both. The only difference is the stories that they cover not the quality of the coverage.

[Tassman]

Feel free to start your own thread featuring Breitbart stories that are factually and demonstrably wrong.

It's the misleading 'spin' that's the problem.

[Sea of red]

Funny thing is, you have yet to show that a single Breitbart story is factually wrong.

How about Shirley Sherrod, ACORN, Seth Rich, Obama "wire tapping Trump", and all of the climate change coverage? Just off the top of my head.

Not that you'll accept any of those examples.

[Meh Gerbil]

CNN producer basically admits they're fake news, mocks ethics in journalism:
http://www.veritaslive.com/06-26-201...pravdacnn.html

Moderator Notice

dubious language warning

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publicly complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[JimL]

It's the misleading 'spin' that's the problem.

Exactly. As an example we have this from Brietbart. President Obama speaking in celebration of the Muslim holiday Eid-Al-Fitr recognised "the many achievments and contributions made by Muslim americans to the building of the very fabric of our nation." The headline in Brietbart news read "OBAMA: Muslims built very fabric of america.