Talk:CNN/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Atheism

If I had a source, I'd put in the criticism section, CNN's arrogant & obnoxious behaviour towards athiest guests. The CNN personalities always side with the religous quests. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what sources are for. Usually, if there is no reputable, credible a source for research on that, it's a personal point of view. That's how "criticism" sections get way out of hand.—DMCer™ 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Touchscreen thing

Does anyone know what that big touchscreen is called? The one they use for their election coverage to do the caucus simulations, election maps, etc? It's really nifty whatever it is. :-) Thompsontough (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently called the "Magic Wall", and if I can find an appropriate place to put it, I'm going to add this source, [1] -- RoninBK _{T C} 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Fox News Channel#Conflict over ratings with CNN --Alegoo92 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction tag

I am removing the tag on the mainpage. The issue seemed to be Fox News claiming that it had more viewers while CNN claims to be America's number one news source. Every business will use puffery to tout themselves. This is not a contradiction, but rather an accurate reflection of true marketing slogans. Rooot (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN Center Damage

Should this be included in this page or be on another page all together?

I can start writing up a page but it wont be up for a few hours due to more storms here in atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordguitar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try working over at n:Possible tornado hits Atlanta -- RoninBK _{T C} 07:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

== Criticism section regarding Tibet ==ROBERT CONTI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BROCCOLI FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The recent criticism section on Tibet appears to lack objectivity. Namely, it did not mention that CNN had responded to the criticism. The information is also very current and the trend of Chinese people using "don't be cnn" ("stop lying") may be a temporary rather than permanent vocabulary. Please review the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The CNN effect

Even though its slogan said"The Most Trusted Name in News",CNN have been accused of bending the truth of the 2008 unrest in tibet. The website "anti-cnn.com" is established to expose the lies and distorted facts to western medias, showing how the coverage of the whole riot from the western medias was biased or even manipulated to some extent, declares" We are not against the western medis, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media " ROBERT CONTI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! chad martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This really should have been placed in the controversy section; however it was misplaced and lacks objectivity. Please note that there are several passages such as these about the current situation in Tibet that lack objectivity and contain grammatical errors. Please review. Inetlom (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Tibet Issue

I also think the Tibet section is highly biased. It seems to have been written by the Chinese government. Check the bad grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.81.78.179 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its fair to accuse the Chinese government on this piece unless wiki's IP scanner shows up as such. I do agree with the original editor how CNN did in fact cropped images to produce a more dramatic appeal, however we should also present how CNN had responded as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.70.18 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 216.252.70.18, we should add this section back. It would be NPOV if we acknowledge the existence of the controversy of CNN's report on Tibet, while presenting the view of both sides. Ziguang (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added both the Chinese allegation and the CNN response to the incident. Though for future reference I think it's unfair if anything contrary to majority opinion is labeled as "written by the Chinese government". Whether you like them or not, I'm pretty sure they have other things to worry about. Gnip (talk) 4:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

it is obivously bias, but did you notice what happened during the SF torch run? maybe the mayor and strong chinese presence reminded them that it may turn into a full out riot on US. it will be the joke of the century if people said, "SF is the tibet of USA"... i think they are just playing to popular opinion instead of reporting news independently. i am boycotting CNN and BBC of my cable subscription. Akinkhoo (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Talking about bias... Dude, why don't you guys come to China and see for yourself and see how much of that negative image of China that your "unbiased" media has made you believe is true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.115.4 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, a sentence has been added to the general intro at the top of the page: "In April 2008, CNN has given a new meaning to the Chinese community. It refers to fake, dishonest, hypocritical, and tautology stories." The incorrect grammar aside, this is highly inappropriate. This area should include a simple introduction of CNN as a news organisation. Bias controversy over Tibet should be confined to the section about Tibet controversy. The opinions of the "Chinese community" should not be part of the general introduction of CNN as a news organisation, especially since those opinions are not universally held. Stick to the universally recognised facts in the intro. Controversy can be treated later where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.241.57 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the comment has been removed. My thanks to whomvever has done so.

Merger proposal

I think we should add in the info from the CNN world news page, and just redirect the CNN world news page to CNN --AndyCook (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

1.5 Billion???

'available to more than 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries and territories.' - This seems incredibly unlikely. At the very least it needs a citation. 81.77.191.254 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to it Jons63 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is it that FOX News page makes sure to tell you about the "right-wing bias" in the opening paragraphs, but we are not allowed to put the same but as a left wing-bias (for which it is charged as by critics)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add citations to back your claims. Avoid using weasel words when making claims. --Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some peer-reviewed, scholarly sources for you:

-->Jeffrey N. Weatherly, et al, “Perceptions of Political Bias in the Headlines of Two Major News Organizations,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics (2007) (12), 91 at p. 97 (finding that “Overall, participants . . . rated the headlines from CNN as significantly more liberal than those from FOX News. . . . CNN tilted more to the left than did FOX News. The conclusion that CNN’s headlines were perceived as more liberal than FOX News’, rather than FOX News’ headlines’ being perceived as more conservative than CNN’s, is supported by the finding that overall, the headlines from FOX News were rated slightly on the liberal side of neutral. If FOX News’ headlines had been perceived as biased toward the conservative viewpoint, then the overall ratings should have exceeded 50 percent.”)

-->Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, & Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The Invisible Primary – Invisible No Longer: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign,” p. 32 [2] (noting that “The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral.”)Jm131284 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Citations? Citations that FOX News has the same criticisms in its opening paragraphs, or citations that CNN is highly criticized? Excuse my noobish-ness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Lists

This article has too many lists. The list of anchors was the clearly the worst of them, and I have moved that out to its own article List of CNN anchors. Another thing to consider moving out into its own list is the long list of shows. Are there any thoughts about this suggestion? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Scandals

How come there is no mention of CNN scandals, such as Peter Arnett and "Tailwind", or CNN's CEO admitting that the network ignored Saddam Hussein's atrocities so they could keep their Baghdad bureau open, or his later having to resign after accusing American soldiers of murdering Iraqi journalists?

CNN Major Primary Corruption in Democrat Primaries

• Almost non stop for approx 15 months, CNN which has endorsed Sen Obama, ALSO, gave Sen Obama coverage all day while esp bad mouthing all day long Sen Clinton. When you calculate out what this was worth

in what was in effect free advertising FOR Obama and using $ 1 million a minute for air time on a channel as CNN, you come up with a number of approximately $ 300 billion in free advertising FOR Sen Obama (if you watch CNN you saw their ads for Obama all day long at least 50 % of the entire day).

• All of that is highly illegal as the FCC (Federal Communications Commision - US federal agency in charge of governing air time on TV stations and radio stations) is supposed to REQUIRE as a matter of LAW "equal time" for all candidates (slightly ignored for minor candidates but supposed to be the law for all major candidates).
• And while a channel as CNN or Fox etc CAN endorse a candidate as Sen Obama, it can NOT give, not 100s

but 1000s of times more air time to the candidate it has endorsed over the other major candidates. It is supposed to be giving by law "equal time".

No that law is that they have to sell advertising to them eqauly if they want it and the same price per minute.--Conor Fallon (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• BUT CNN did this from April of 2007 to the present time FOR Sen Obama and did it non stop. And lately this ongoing attempt to buy the election as president FOR Obama with 100s of billions of free air time for Obama , CNN has continued while also claiming the squeaker win by Obama over Clinton was a "movement" when it was a squeaker win and only then after that $ 300 billion in free advertising for Sen Obama, that Sen Clinton did not get.
• And lately, CNN escalates all this, seeking to revise history itself, claiming that Robert Kennedy was huge god-like civil rights hero / icon , when he never was; and that whole recent story by CNN about Kenndy is ONLY to pump up Obama using Robert Kennedy, as in all those recent CNN stories all day long about Kennedy, they / CNN talking heads after mentioning how wonderful Robert Kennedy was in working for civil rights for blacks, etc, they immediately instantly add that Obama is the same, when Obama has never done about any work for any civil rights except couple summers strolling about in South Chicago.
• This CNN non stop ad campaign FOR Sen Obama amounts to the largest corruption in US Political History.

and makes Obama's win over Clinton in reality, a purchase of that win by CNN by massive corruption and its free $300 billion ad campaign for Obama.

• Why? Apparently the owner of CNN , Time Warner, whose chairman is Richard D Parsons - a black person,

has given those marching orders to CNN to force this approach of massive corrupt and endless free ads for Obama. (CNN owned by Turner Broadcasting which is owned by Time Warner.)

• This same approach of massive illegal free time and corruption FOR Obama is continuing in the Democrat vs Republican campaing of Obama vs McCain. With Sen Obama, given by CNN all day long coverage and Sen McCain bad mouth 1000 ways all day long. *Footnote- FCC has slowly been investigating all this.

Ref FCC file no. "CIMS00000840522 - fairness". /s/ FCC ombudsman jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.1.178 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• You're full of bullshit. --Ac1983fan 21:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism sections is getting pretty large for a summary. It should be cleaned up quite a bit and summarized better to reflect only the major issues of criticism, and not duplicate what is already in the sub-article section. If no objections I will take a crack at it. Arzel (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

criticisms oj simpson

i'm surprised there is no mention of the oj simpson trial. Does anyone remember when the most trusted name in news devoted all of it's time to covering the oj trial? that's news? also ,, it's seems there is " breaking news" every two seconds these days on cnn,, it reminds me of nancy grace . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.141.205 (talk) 06:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

CNN & coverage of Canada

I've no sources for this; but CNN seems to mostly ignore Canada. Example: They mentoned virtually nothing of Canada recent federal election. Is there a way this could be added into the critism section? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Not without reliable sources saying it's significant and relevant. NcSchu_(Talk) 21:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservative Bias?

This article refers to accusations of both conservative and liberal bias at CNN. I think the allegation of conservative bias should be removed. Almost all of the accusations of bias against CNN accuse it of having a left-wing bias. The only people who have accused it of having a right-wing bias are far left group such as Media Matters for America and The Nation.--75.50.47.209 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Christine Romans, not Christian Romans

Can someone fix Christine's link it's not Christian but Christine. I would fix it but the lock won't let me (I'm new). It should link to Christine_Romans. Thanks.

Dr121 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Source in the Fourth paragraph of the Intro actually contradicts the assertion that CNN caters to a more “centrist” audience

In the fourth paragraph of the introductory section, the following statement appears: “Among cable viewers, CNN has a more moderate or centrist audience.” The first source for this assertion – the Pew Research Center article – directly contradicts that assertion. Specifically, the article states: “In short, the newest data on public attitudes seem to put in clear relief the idea that Republicans gravitate to Fox and Democrats to CNN.” [3]. Thus, it would appear on the basis of that article that the statement should be changed to “Among Cable viewers, CNN has a more liberal audience…” The second source for the assertion – a FAIR post – is not reliable, as FAIR is a “progressive media criticism organization” whose “target invariably is bias on the right.”[4]. The FAIR post is not only inherently unreliable, but is actually contradicted by findings in the academic literature.[5]. See also Jeffrey N. Weatherly, et al, “Perceptions of Political Bias in the Headlines of Two Major News Organizations,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics (2007) (12), 91 at p. 97.

Therefore, I am leaving in tact the statement concerning MSNBC (with its sources), and am going to change the statement to read that "Like MSNBC, which has been accused of leaning left (sources in tact), CNN has been accussed of leaning left (new, scholarly sources), and has been regarded as catering to a more liberal audience (original source, but other source (FAIR) removed), whereas Fox News has been regarded as catering to more conserviative viewers (first source left, but FAIR source removed).Jm131284 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think everyone agrees that this is vandalism, so it's going "This was before correspondents reported live from the enemy capital while American bombs were falling. Before Saddam Hussein held a surreal press conference with a few of the hundreds of Americans he was holding hostage. Before the nation watched, riveted but powerless, as Los Angeles was looted and burned. Before O. J. Simpson took a slow ride in a white Bronco, and before everyone close to his case had an agent and a book contract. This was uncharted territory just a short time ago.--Tomvasseur (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Does CNN use Paid Staff to Monitor and Edit This Article?

Does CNN use Paid Staff to Monitor and Edit This Article? Any contributions that help answer this question are welcome here. And should also be added to the main article.

65.101.251.116 (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well probably not if you just look above--84.194.146.80 (talk) 19:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

INTRODUCTION

Why is it that the FOX News page makes sure to tell you about the "right-wing bias" in the opening paragraphs, but we are not allowed to put the same but as a left wing-bias in the CNN article? Weatherman90 (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That statement is only on the Fox News page because at least 90% of the criticisms made are explicitly related to the network having a right-wing bias. The criticisms of CNN are a lot more diversified and it would seem odd to move only a mention of it having a left-wing bias to the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 22:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NcSchu, the only criticsms of conservative bias are from MMA. They even criticize MSNBC as being biased towards conservatives? They see conservative bias in everything and may not be a good source for your above opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.81.36.178 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of criticisms not related to politics that have equal merit to the ones regarding liberal and conservative biases and make those ones less significant for mentioning solely in the lead. NcSchu_(Talk) 20:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question, CNN is usually accused of liberal bias. The conservative bias accusations are small in comparison as others have amply pointed out. If nobody has any defense other than a gut feeling that FOX's controversy is more notable that CNN's I'm putting a small blurb in Jarwulf (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC) Okay...I see its already in nvmind Jarwulf (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How can a channel NOT be accused of so called "liberal bias" nowadays? All 3 federal government branches have democrats in the majority. I don't think anything's wrong with "being bias" anyway, its called Freedom of Speech (or did the Republicans repeal the First Amendment?) TomCat4680 (talk) 07:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

False info

They always seem to give out false information, on a daily basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.190.22.151 (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah CNN is such tabloid journalism. I get all of my news from the National Enquirer (sarcasm). TomCat4680 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hughley left CNN

D.L. Hughley left CNN over a week ago, we should take his name down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.32.168 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? TomCat4680 (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

yes, type it into google, plus I watch CNN all the time, and I know. Ive also read it in the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.32.168 (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

A good editor would put up the source themselves instead of saying, "you find it." TomCat4680 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I read it in the paper I watch CNN. I never said I was a good editor, I just know a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.92.32.168 (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this newspaper have a name? Newspaper articles are a reliable source but you have to actually specifically tell us the name of it, date of publication, article name, author's name, etc. If you don't you're just spreading unconfirmed rumors.TomCat4680 (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop Removing Sources/Material Without Describing your Rationale Here

Someone removed the sentence, backed with SCHOLARLY SOURCES, concerning CNN's perceived bias. They did not approach the discussion page first. Therefore, I put them back as they were. These were scholarly sources, and the substantive content is appropriate, just as the statement concerning bias in the intro of the Fox News paragraph is appropriate.Jm131284 (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the sources were good. Yet the information was removed again. Will replace and hope that if the editor who continues to delete will discuss on this talk page rather than continue to remove. Since current consensus seems to be to keep.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed well sourced information on media organisations bias should always remain, thats certainly the case on most articles about them. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop editing warring please. Send the person a WP:3RR warning if it continues and they refuse to discuss it civilly. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

split sections

I would split the history section as MSNBC has their own and also potentially split the controversy section--Levineps (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

CNN

The massive campaign by CNN to save General Motors appears to be working especially in the Midwest states. 204.133.215.130 (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Patently Unreliable Source in First Paragraph; Contradicted By Peer-Reviewed, Academic Literature

At the beginning of this article (fourth paragraph down) the following statement appears: "Among the general public, CNN has a more centrist perception.” The source for this proposition is FAIR, FAIR being a “progressive media criticism organization” whose “target invariably is bias on the right” [6]. Needless to say, FAIR is not a reliable source. On the other hand, the academic literature (i.e., peer-reviewed, scholarly journals) is full of articles addressing CNN's bias. They have concluded that the public perceives CNN to have a liberal bias:

-->Jeffrey N. Weatherly, et al, “Perceptions of Political Bias in the Headlines of Two Major News Organizations,” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics (2007) (12), 91 at p. 97 (finding that “Overall, participants . . . rated the headlines from CNN as significantly more liberal than those from FOX News. . . . CNN tilted more to the left than did FOX News. The conclusion that CNN’s headlines were perceived as more liberal than FOX News’, rather than FOX News’ headlines’ being perceived as more conservative than CNN’s, is supported by the finding that overall, the headlines from FOX News were rated slightly on the liberal side of neutral. If FOX News’ headlines had been perceived as biased toward the conservative viewpoint, then the overall ratings should have exceeded 50 percent.”)

-->Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University, & Project for Excellence in Journalism, “The Invisible Primary – Invisible No Longer: A First Look at Coverage of the 2008 Presidential Campaign,” p. 32 [7] (noting that “The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral.”)

The administrator who semi-protected this article knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that (1) FAIR is a blatently unreliable source, and - equally important - (2) actual,peer-reviewed studies suggest precisely the opposite of the proposition that CNN is perceived as "centrist." Whatever administrator has control of this article, please message me ASAP confirming that this patently false statement concerning CNN's "centrist" perception is taken down. Jm131284 (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

No specific admin has control of this article, any admin can do anything to it they want. Just like regular editors, admins don't own articles. But if you have a problem and need an admin, post it on WP:ANI.TomCat4680 (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox News is firmly on the right, like MSNBC is firmly on the left. You can't say that CNN is liberal by comparing it to Fox. According to that logic, a completely neutral network would be liberal compared to Fox, and likewise, if you were to compare a completely neutral network to MSNBC, it would appear to be conservative. If you want to analyze the political leanings of a network, you have to compare it to a neutral network. --Josh Atkins ^{(talk - contribs)} 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Josh, J.M. here (the original poster). I suggest that you see the academic articles I cited above. One of them (the Weatherly article) found that both CNN and Fox were left of center. Thus, the premise of your argument - that even a neutral network would appear liberal when compared to Fox - goes out the window. See the parenthetical following the source for more details. Best, J.M.Jm131284 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the current reading is; Like MSNBC,[12][13][14] CNN has been accused of leaning left[15][16] and catering to a more liberal audience,[17] whereas Fox News has been regarded as catering to a more conservative audience.[17].

Why is the last sentence there? why not just leave it at CNN has been accused of leaning left[15][16] and catering to a more liberal audience,[17]? Where MSNBC and Fox play in is irrelevent, at least in the opening sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.226.88 (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Because the Big 3 news channels are compared all the time, so its perfectly relevant. I watch CNN a lot and I don't think they lean either way, but that's just my opinion. For example, take the 8 PM shows: Olbermann and O'Reilly are blatantly biased but Campbell Brown's show is actually titled NO Bias, No Bull and there's no proof she is either liberal or conservative. (she doesn't have an ongoing, immature flame war with either of competitors either, a big plus IMO). TomCat4680 (talk) 05:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I found the claim of Fox liberal bias surprising (as I think most readers will!), so I followed the reference. As a new user, I can't edit this article because it is protected, but I think the controversial sentence on CNN/Fox should read something like: "One study found that CNN and Fox News were both perceived as leaning slightly left of neutral in coverage of the 2004 presidential elections" instead of "CNN and Fox News have both been described as leaning left of neutral in coverage of the 2004 presidential elections". The "One study" text is better than "have been described" because it is specific and not weakly passive (why not say who has described?). The change to use the word "perception" is important because the cited paper is just a survey of perceptions of news headlines by University of North Dakota students. This is clearly supported by the authors use of "perception" as the first word in the title. For example, the students were asked to rank how liberal/conservative each of these two headlines for the same story were: "Kerry Touts Health-care Plan" [CNN], "Kerry Woos Wisconsin Seniors" [Fox]. When shown those headlines together, the students ranked CNN=27 and Fox=35 (0=liberal, 100=conservative). The mean score for each of the sources were CNN=46.31 and Fox=49.17, thus the authors' statement that "the headlines from Fox News were rated slightly on the liberal side of neutral." Note also that the researchers specifically chose the set of headlines (ideally to be representative) but only chose stories that appeared on both sites. They note for example that this analysis missed the fact that Fox had more coverage of the CBS/Rather/Documents story than did CNN (and in turn CNN must have filled that gap with stories that Fox was missing). Haroldmroberts (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The claims (by various sources and "studies") of bias are varied, as claims always are. Statistics can be made to say almost anything -- and almost always paint a deceiving or incomplete picture. The studies mentioned above have many flaws and limitations, including, as you noted, only testing "perception" based on headline wording. Some only guage coverage of presidential candidates, instead of politics in general. Some are conducted over a small, 2-month snapshot, instead of a longer duration; some studies compare networks to each other, instead of to an external standard of neutrality. Some studies are 10 years old or more, and I know cable news channels have altered their coverage styles considerably over the years. Maybe we should include the study of just CNN's Lou Dobbs' coverage of political issues, and then conclude CNN "leans conservative"? I plan to move that whole section out of the lead, because it certainly doesn't belong there; and I'm tempted to remove it from the article completely (since we have an article on Media bias in the United States already). Thoughts? Xenophrenic (talk) 21:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems best to me. The cited paper is very interesting, but it's interesting because of the details rather than as an attempt to make a point despite the details. A separate article could presumably walk through those details with this and other papers. Haroldmroberts (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

It would be interesting if we could gather sources on CNN's journalistic policies towards the Mideast conflict. An interesting issue is whether people think it is pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian. [8] ADM (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Newsroom Images

There are 2 images in this article that are labeled as "CNN Newsroom." In reality both pictures are of a mockup of the CNN desk that is in the giftshop and is setup for people to take souvenir pictures. In the interest of accuracy the images in the CNN article should be relabeled or taken down.

Yoshimbo (talk) 20:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC/Fox/MSNBC

This article is about CNN. There is no need to mention these other organizations. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

A search of the article for "MSNBC" yielded no results. A search for "Fox" only resulted in one hit, a mention in the criticism section regarding CNN's adoption of the Fox News Channel penchant of commentary instead of objective presentation. A search for "BBC" only shows a difference between centralized vs. affiliate-based journalism. There does not appear to be coverage of other topics; none of the topics mentioned seem excessive or inappropriate for the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Update - apparently I overlooked the edits that removed aforementioned coverage. Everything looks okay now; I don't see any problems with the changes you made.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Good changes Daydreamer, I support them. TAway (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like someone really wants Fox and BBC to specifically be mentioned on the page (Controversies section/Online ranking *sigh*). I'm tempted to delete the entire section, but will definitely pursue getting rid of these references. In order to prevent an editing war, I will try to track down these editors and get them to defend these otherwise clearly irrelevant references here in this discussion. --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I can't seem to track down when the Fox references were put in. It's like they magically appeared out of nowhere. Is there some InviseFoxBot wandering around Wikipedia? ;) --Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Negative, I am a meat popsicle (who supports your position).  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 10:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

political analists

bill schneider links to a base guitarist, might want to add (journalist) to the link. john king links to a general John King page with a whole list of John Kings instead of John King (journalist), you might want to edit the link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svanriesen (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Anderson, just an old and tired fed up person. Your credentials are worthy. Please don't shut up. The news stations or even governments might shut you up, but please don't as you are currently not doing. Just say it. How else can I here hear it? And by the by liked the interview with the grouches on sesame street. Yeah it's sad for me to admit, but please, you're qualified,even if I don't want to hear the tough stuff. I will listen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.129.48 (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)