Jump to content

Talk:CNN/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Frankfurt

CNN also holds a bureau in Frankfurt, Germany. Please change the article! Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.103.81 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you have a reputable citation to back up your info, feel free to add it on your own. BalticPat22Pat 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fox References creeping back in

Somebody is really fixated on doing this. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

On 9-11 anniversary, CNN wrongly reported that a Coast Guard vessel fired shots at a boat on the Potomac River

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in this article, CNN controversies, or both. ABC News and USA Today have reported that on the anniversary of 9-11, CNN wrongly reported that a Coast Guard vessel fired shots at a boat on the Potomac River. I cannot add this myself because I have been topic banned from political articles, but I am allowed to make suggestions on the talk pages. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

They were paranoid and thought it was a terrorist attack on the 9/11 anniversary. It was an honest mistake, I don't see how its controversial. CNN is allowed to mess up every now and then. If they'd knowingly reported false information that'd be a controversy, but that wasn't the case here. Fox News and MSNBC reported the same thing BTW. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 07:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Well its obviously recent, he wanted to discuss whether or not it was controversial. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This event does not need to be mentioned here or on other news agency articles. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
OK. Since the consensus is not to add it, it should not be added. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


#CNNFactCheck

CNN fact checked an SNL sketch joking that Obama hasn't accomplished much, and shortly after, CNN actually fact checked it, generating some buzz over how ridiculous some people found it to fact check comedy. I'm not saying it's controversial, but maybe it's noteworthy, and it's recent.

For example, it spawned a new hashtag on Twitter #CNNFactCheck that is still being used: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/cnn/cnns_snl_fact_check_generates_backlash_139427.asp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7x-dzXVcOw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.159.98.183 (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs and Twitter are considered self published and Youtube is full of copyright violations, so both are unreliable sources. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

NYT articles

Worth reporting or should it wait for further development? Soxwon (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think saying they finished last in October is a little premature, there's still 5 days left in the month. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No mention of bias in the opening paragraph?

The Fox News Channel article has a mention of its alleged consevative bias in its opening paragraph, yet CNN, who has been accused of bias by both sides of America politics, has no mention of bias. We have an entire article on CNN controversies where the very controversy mentioned is its alleged bias. I feel that this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph just as in the Fox News Channel article to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

If the accusers have bias themselves, that's not a neutral assessment. TomCat4680 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
It should definitely be mentioned in the lead, due to the fact there are mentions in both Fox News Channel and to a lesser degree, MSNBC. Personally, I think all the articles would be better off without these criticisms in the lead. ThinkEnemies (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
In response to Tomcat4680, probably most editors at this site have a bias of some sort. As ThinkEnemies said, their is a mention in the lead at the MSNBC article as well as Fox News. Also, this network has not only been accused of being either liberal or conservative, it's been accused of both according to the article; conservatives say it's liberal and liberals say it's conservative. The question isn't whether or not it's (considered to be) biased, the article already tells us this, the question is whether or not this should be mentioned in the opening paragraph. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 01:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the following content from the lead section:
Many observers of the network say that CNN has become increasingly liberal, notably in reference to the networks coverage of the 2008 US Presidential Election and its perceived favorable coverage of President Barack Obama. [9][10][11][12][13]
None of the 5 cited sources convey this content. One of the sources actually says the opposite; one is an opinion piece by a former correspondant; another is a complaint about a single reporter... If we're going to establish CNN as liberally biased, "notably in reference to the 2008 election", in the lead of this article, we should at least have substantial sourcing for that assertion. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I support this change. Additionally, with regards to the original post in this thread... there seems to be a pervasive misunderstanding of late whereby people believe that two entities in a similar/same field must be treated as foils, presenting a false equivocation. The idea that "because it's done in Fox News Channel, so must it be done here" is a false dichotomy -- the accusations of bias against Fox News far outweighs similar claims against CNN (or even MSNBC), both in volume and substance (read: "peer reviewed studies"). There is no rationale in policy nor in logic that requires the CNN article to give as much weight to accusations of bias as exists in other articles. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have reorganized the statement. It now reads.
"Many observers of the network say that CNN has become increasingly liberal. CNN has been accused of having a favorable bias of Democratic President Barack Obama during the 2008 US Presidential Election season when compared to other candidates in the race."
I have cited a Rasmussen poll for the first sentence; the poll concluded that American's perceive CNN to have a liberal bias. The second sentence is supported by a Harvard study that found the coverage of the 2008 election to have a pro-Barack Obama bias over other candidates in that race (page 32, under the CNN sub-heading). Hope this helps explain the intro. It is only fair that CNN have mention of bias in the intro since FOX and MSNBC both have that label in their intro. If CNN was, in fact, viewed as being neutral, then the tag would be unnecessary. However, there is an overwhelmingly strong argument for the networks liberal/pro-Barack Obama bias. This is outlined in two reputable sources, Rasmussen and Harvard's evaluation of the networks journalism. Ocexpo (talk) 09:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it interesting how different people can look at the same polling data and arrive at different results? The Rasmussen poll you cite is of 1433 viewers in July of 2007, not "observers", and concludes that conservative American's perceived CNN to have a liberal bias. In addition, CNN's bias is also perceived as being conservative, not liberal:
On a partisan basis, Democrats see the major television networks and Fox as biased in favor of conservatives. Solid pluralities of Democrats believe CNN and NPR deliver news without bias. Those Democrats who see bias at CNN and NPR are fairly evenly divided, but are a bit more likely to detect conservative bias.
If you are going to make significant lead-paragraph assertions of fact, they should be cited to high quality, second party sources - not a single telephone poll conducted back in july, 2007.
Your second sentence is a complete distortion of the source to which it is cited. The Harvard study says nothing about the 2008 election, and it even states it covers only January-May, 2007, before the 2008 campaign season and long before Obama became a front-runner. Your page 32 says nothing about "bias", and instead comments only on favorable coverage.
The findings about who got the most favorable coverage and the focus on horse race in many ways reinforce each other. Obama the first candidate of color to be a major White House contender, performed better in polling and fundraising than expected in these early months. McCain, in contrast, was a former presumed front runner who fared far worse in the polls and in fundraising than anticipated.
You are trying to call it biased coverage by the media, while your source says there was simply more favorable news to cover about some candidates than other candidates at that point.
In the first five months of the campaign, the media found Democrats more newsworthy than Republicans. From January through May 2007, nearly half of 2008 election stories, 49%, focused on Democratic candidates, while less than a third, 31%, focused on Republicans. More than half of this difference can be accounted for by the fact that Democrats started announcing their campaigns a month earlier than Republicans.
Your content also mistakenly presents Obama as receiving the most favored coverage when your source instead says:
In all, 46% about Thompson carried a clearly positive tone, while more than half (51%) were neutral. Almost none, just 4%, was negative. That stands out as the most pronounced gap (13-to-one) of positive to negative stories of any major candidate. One obvious question is how that might have changed now that he has declared himself as one of the pack.
Your page 32 says nothing about "bias", only about positive and negative coverage - and the CNN section of your source even refutes your assertion of CNN liberal bias: It’s not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. If you'll read the rest of the study, as well as the subsequent conclusions (pages 34-36), you'll see the study clearly explains the coverage of Obama, and your personal opinion of "bias" is not part of that explanation. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Rasmussen's report states that CNN is perceived as having a liberal bias by a margin similar to that of the FOX News's perceived conservative bias. I don't know what you are talking about, but it clearly states that there is a perceived liberal bias among viewers when it comes to CNN. You can say there are some who view FOX as being liberal (just as you can say some view CNN is conservative), but the overwhelming consensus is that it has a liberal bias. That bias is reflective in this reputable poll.
By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias.
And the second sentence is meant to stand completely alone from the bias allegation. I state that Barack Obama received favorable coverage compared to other candidates in the race, which is clearly stated on page 32 of the Harvard report. It is not meant to be attached to the "liberal" sentence which is why I put this statement in a second sentence. This is purely about fairness. CNN is NOT viewed as being a neutral news network. It should have a mention of its bias IF other articles (MSNBC and FOX) have similar statements in their intro's. If CNN was viewed as being neutral, it would not be needed. But it is viewed as being a liberal news network, and as such, it should be mentioned in the intro just as it is mentioned for FOX and MSNBC. If it is removed from those intro's as well, then I would support it. Ocexpo (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch this other than to say these may be two snapshots of opinion, rather than an overall trend. The evidence used to suggest that Fox is conservative goes on for awhile, while the evidence for CNN seems to be scattered at best. Not enough for lede imo, though a mention of the biased election coverage might be worth mentioning in the body if there is a bit more evidence. Soxwon (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
If FOX and MSNBC have to be plagued with this in their respective intro's, then CNN should as well. Numerous, numerous studies and polls have shown that CNN has a perceived liberal bias. It is only fair. CNN is far from a neutral newscaster and it is blasted for its liberal stances frequently. Ocexpo (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:OSE, this isn't Fox or MSNBC, they do not dictate the content here. Soxwon (talk) 04:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Stumbled about this discussion, I agree with Soxwon. The FOX bias, based on the european ideals of party-journalism imported by Murdoch to America, is much more strongly established than the debates over CNN.--Milowent (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, sense CNN isn't conservative bias, American conservatives automatically assume it's liberal bias. American conservatism or the political right is very weird compared to the rest of the world. If you aren't overly patriotically aggressive, assessing christian morals to everything and being pro gun pro life, you are automatically a liberal. I only know this because I've moved from Europe to the USA two years ago and have been pretty weirder out by a lot of the popular republican politicians or spokes people, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin especially. What I'm trying to say is internationally CNN is considered pretty neutral, having both favorable conservative and liberal commentary, while Americain news channel Fox is radically to the right and channal MSNBC is radically to the left. The politically atmosphere here is a lot more intense and paranoid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop spewing your opinions all over wikipedia. The original post simply pointed out that there are reliable sources (academic sources, in fact) that have references CNN's bias (many, many more than for Fox).ExitW3Must (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
And if CNN is considered neutral internationally, whoopty doo. Find a source for that and we can include it next to the myriad of scholarly sources finding them to be liberal-biased, albeit on an "American" scale. By the way, I've never quite understood the fixation you folks abroad have with our politics. It's like you're always trying to weigh in on American politics as if anyone here actually cares what you think. Want to make sure we understand that the rest of the world is more liberal than us? Great. But until you're the world's only remaining super power, I don't think anyone here really cares.ExitW3Must (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Finally, I would like to address Xenophrenic's statement that "your page 32 says nothing about 'bias,' only about positive and negative coverage." Does Xenophrenic know what bias is? Bias is favoring one party or a point of view over others, often through positive or negative coverage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExitW3Must (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The idea that positive/negative stories has to be equal is flawed because it assumes that the positive/negative stories out there is equal. The best way I can present what I mean by this is through an example. Let's look at the positive/negative stories between the Cleveland Cavs and New Jersey Nets. The Cavs have many more positive stories and less negative stories, but the vice-versa is true for the Nets. Does this mean that there is a bias towards the Cavs? No, its a product of the fact that the Cavs have the best record in the NBA, while the Nets have the worst. (Please don't make any interpretations because I used the best and worst teams, I only did that because it shows my point the best.)--76.235.208.230 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Given there is no agreement anywhere as to CNN's (alleged?) bias, certainly there is no need to mention it in the introduction. I suppose it is possible to include the fact that there is no agreement as to allegations of bias, but at that point it's probably not a fact suitable for the introduction (in which cumbersome explanations are to be avoided). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Exit I'm an American citizen, I said I moved from Europe to the USA, but I guess it's hard for you to connect sentences together? And this is my first Wikipedia edit ever, I think you are projecting yourself onto me because I can picture a person like you spending time arguing with strangers on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 00:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fake picture?

Is this image File:Cnnreport.JPG used on this article fake? The overlaying images look like they've been pasted in using MS Paint. --Joowwww (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word "initialism" in the first sentence

That word points at "Acronym_and_initialism," which seems to be defining initialism as any acronym where the individual letters are read or spoken (I.e. FBI = Eff Bee Eye, not Fibby, FuhBee, or FuhBye). On the other hand, it has this little gem: "The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known." In light of that fact, the question becomes, why the hell are we using that word here? I can understand the desire to use the most specific term when referencing something. However, Wikipedia is meant to be accessible by normal human beings, and as the linked page indicates, normal human beings don't know what the hell "initialism" means.
--Cogniac (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

On Octavia Nasr

The outrage over Ms Nasr sympathy for a "liberal-minded Muslim cleric" was so huge because he had had ties to Hezbollah, which is a terrorist organization in Lebanon. Hezbollah is also responsible for 1986 attack on US barracks in Lebanon which killed over 200 military personnel.

I suggest adding the words "with ties to Hezbollah" and removing "liberal-minded" from the description of the cleric, because Hezbollah is not a moderate Muslim organization. 62.241.237.84 (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from {{subst:CURRENTUSER}}, 8 August 2010

 Not done

{{editsemiprotected}}


RJW Times (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)One way that could improve the article even more is that, CNN US is available to over 100m homes. Can't remember where found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RJW Times (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 August 2010

PLease make a specific request of what you would like changed. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Unlock the page

Despite alleged so-called vandalism, unlock the page with immediate effect. --93.82.9.129 (talk) 07:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Request edits

http://www.businessinsider.com/cnbc-beat-cnn-in-primetime-monday-night-thats-really-bad-for-cnn-2010-8

CNBC beats CNN, therefore CNN now only on 4th place after Fox News, MSNBC and CNBC. This edit should be made to the article. --188.23.191.16 (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Ratings Discussions and Other News Agency references (Fox, MSNBC, etc...)

These really have no place in an otherwise neutral article. They date badly what should be an encyclopedic topic and open the article up to 'competitive' editing which is not the point of updating information here. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Live stream

Where is a CNN HD live stream on the internet? Thanks --93.82.15.235 (talk) 13:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

CNNRadio network was eliminated from article. It's the second oldest network at CNN. Please re-instate. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.166.167.129 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Istemi2225, 2 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}


Istemi2225 (talk) 14:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

CNN RADIO

Can someone please mention something about CNN Radio? I mean.. anything. I literally have no idea what it is. But I know there is one, and this article briefly mentions it. --24.192.70.167 (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CNN Vs FOX news Wikipedia definitions

Not really surprised that the Wikipedia article on "Fox News" refers to it early on as right wing. No mention of any leaning of CNN in the Wikipedia article on CNN as even being a "tad" left wing. \Am I surprised? No. Should it? Yes. Am I surprised? No. Come on people. Wake up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.29.158 (talk) 05:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because another article has POV bias in it, doesn't mean that this article or any other related article should include such such bias as well. If the Fox News article does indeed include such things, you should practice due diligence and edit that sort of thing right out of that article as soon as possible. This is an encyclopedia, not a political rant/comparison site. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


It is noted that observers feel that FOX leans right. Why is there no mention of CNN or the other major medias leaning left. I am sure there are many observers who feel this to be true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.6.174.165 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Create a separate article on the perceived regional political bias of the various American news organizations then? Since this is 'noted', you should have no problem finding references and defending the existence of such an article in the encyclopedia.Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The major media establish is liberal except for Fox News which is centrist but comparably it looks right wing. Statistics bare this out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Bias?!?

This article says that CNN has been accused of promoting both conservative and liberal editorializing. I don't think that's correct. I believe that the vast majority of accusations against CNN have been from conservatives accusing it of liberal editorializing. CNN is the opposite of Fox News in this respect, Fox News is biased to the conservative side with all bias accusations coming from liberals, CNN the inverse biased to the left, though perhaps not as much as Fox News is to the right with most accusations coming from conservatives. --99.172.130.196 (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

suggest revision to early history

The main article History of CNN (1980–2003) was revised to include the significance of satellite capacity.

Suggest Early History be edited: "The Cable News Network was launched at 5:00 p.m. EST on Sunday June 1, 1980, transmitted using Satcom 1 satellite; a lawsuit secured the replacement transponder after the intended Satcom 3 was lost upon reaching orbit."69.72.27.242 (talk) 11:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Crier & Company and CNN & Company should be listed as news debate shows that aired around lunch. I don't know precise years though I believe Crier & Company was the original name for the show. I recall the show definitely existed during the early period of the Clinton administration before the 1994 elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Erin Burnett

Hi, I've been trying to find out some information about what's happening – AC will move to 8pm starting tomorrow, but Erin Burnett's new show isn't supposed to go on the air until September. So it is inaccurate to say that her show is on right now at the 7pm slot. Are they just going to do CNN Newsroom filler until they get her show online, or what? (They did this after cancelling Rick's Show but before Parker Spitzer came online.) I can't find anything online. I guess we'll find out tomorrow... hbdragon88 (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed that John King USA currently occupies the 7-8pm slot. I'll find out tomorrow what is in JKUSA's slot &Ndash; is TSR now three hours? (horror) hbdragon88 (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was looking at videos of 9/11 on youtube.com and I saw one where CNN is interviewing Jamie McIntyre on 9/11. I swear he says very adamantly that there was no plane that crashed into the pentagon. He was standing right there. It didn't look like a fake interview.Mylittlezach (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

CNN Censorship and technical problems - please add

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwFrMVidWkQ Videos there. As far as it looks like an censorship. Not to blame CNN at all, because they made interesting interview with soldier supporting way out, and also not want to fight the Iran(maybe he even want to go to Somalia to remove problem of pirates), but they reported "technical problems", "saying they will go back". And... there was no ending of interview!. For me it's at least incident worth inserting in Wikipedia. Of course with Wikipedia quality standards - if there was official paper from CNN it is worth also saying about it, and also finding why they don't end this, even later.

The Punitive articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice include Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation), in this instance, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, which prohibits political activities (including speeches and attending gatherings) while in unifom (out of uniform is fine). It appears only that CNN realized this before the serviceman, and stopped after already putting him on camera. But to include that, reliable sources (independent of CNN) would have to report on it to a significant level. Dru of Id (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Requests for edits to a semi-protected page should be specific (for example, "Please change X to Y") and supported by reliable sources. Mato (talk) 22:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Online live video

Please update the article to include that for US viewers, the live video stream online now requires authentication with a subscription including CNN with a participating cable or satellite provider. It is part of the Tv Everywhere initiative. http://techcrunch.com/2011/07/18/cnn-tv-everywhere/ Video clips remain freely available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.147.58 (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

suggest revision to The Next List line under Sunday programming

The Next List is located in New York, not the CNN Center. The executive producer is Jim McGinnis, who is based in New York. The line description for the show could potentially read: "A weekly show profiling top innovators from around the world."

See: http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/the-next-list-with-sanjay-gupta-to-premiere-sunday_b97043 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauraly (talk • contribs) 16:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lauraly (talk) 16:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing Contributor

Under CNN contributors, under the conservative list, should be Erick Erickson, owner of the site redstate.com. Please include him on that list, as he is a frequent contributor. It is locked or else I would add him.69.255.44.231 (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I didn't realize I wasn't logged in. I added him.Jasonnewyork (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

CNN=propaganda

CNN is worse case of propaganda machine since Joseph Goebbels in nazi Germany. CNN, BBC, and FOX news are all in the same bucket. Brainwashing masses to the point of no return, and without any shame. Such NWO television and media outlets should be ignored if you really want to know the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.213.94.73 (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

No, FoxNews is not in the same bucket with CNN and BBC. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

President and Religious Leader (Obama's Position on Gay Mariage)

The role of a President is different from that of a religious leader. This is very simple to understand. The president is elected to protect the right and life of every citizen no matter what his or her political or religious confession may be. That is why President must always take decision that benefits everyone in the nation. The religious leader himself or herself is a chief of a narrow group of people who shares a common faith. Since State and Church are two separated antities, the President being a political leader, must act accordingly and leave religious matters to the church. And in addition, State should not get involve in the matter of mariage. As a religious person, I fully agree with the President Obama's decision on gay mariage. And that decision should even have nothing to do with his personal faith for He is actually in a political arena. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.156.212 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

President Barack Hussein Obama didn't make a decision—he made a statement on his "evolving" position. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Additions to the Controversy section

CNN being called Clinton News Network and Communist News Network have been common attacks that should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Name calling, even by 'reputable' people, has no place in this article. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
But what about Fox News being called "Faux News"? Thats an attack, and while I support both news channels, we need to show that CNN gets attacked just like Fox News, in order to avoid bias, and to be nice to both viewpoints, its just my opinion on how the article should be changed.140.198.45.63 (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as Fox is concerned, I stand by my comment. Name-calling, even if fans of both networks are doing it, has no place in this article, or the Fox article. If the name calling is so relevant as to be mentioned in an encyclopedia, then it should be notable enough to get its own article on wikipedia with sources and everything. This article is about CNN, not the pejoratives of CNN (the same applies to Fox, though I'm staying out of that fight for right now. That article is neutrality nightmare). Daydreamer302000 (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

John King

John King's CNN show was canceled; is he still CNN's Chief National Correspondent ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

According to CNN website (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/anchors_reporters/king.john.html), yes. Lyfegirl (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

CNN article and other news agency references

Hi Xenophrenic. I and others (see the CNN talk archives) would like to keep this article free of references of other news agencies. You reverted a removal of such a reference, justifying this change as wording from the supporting citation. First, this should be a direct quote in double parenthesis if you truly wish justify inclusion based on that alone. Second, though most importantly, it is irrelevant whether ten other agencies were specifically 'worded' in the citation as this article is on CNN, not Fox, or MSNBC or whoever else may be mentioned in the citation.

This is a slippery slope that has, after some battles, already been fought back and won. This article is as neutral as one could hope to expect considering the topic. If we allow all of these other news agency references to creep in again, I fear it will turn back into the CNN vs Fox vs MSNBC battleground that it previously was (and that the Fox News Wikipedia article sadly still is). I will remove the reference in 24 hours if I do not hear back from you either on your talk page or in the CNN talk page. I know you would like to keep the conversations on your personal talk page, but the CNN talk page already has a section and I'd like others to see it so that there can be consensus. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Daydreamer302000. Thank you for informing me of what you and some others would like. As editors here, however, we must instead abide by what Wikipedia requires (see the Wikipedia policies). That includes conveying what cited reliable sources have conveyed (and no, a direct quote is in no way warranted here). When adding negative or "controversial" information, care must be taken to include context and any relevant explanatory information, regardless of what we "would like" -- in this instance, that CNN was not alone in performing an allegedly controversial action.
I share your concern about the unnecessary introduction of references to competing news agencies (see my edit here as an example), but that doesn't mean we must purge every mention; especially when to do so would result in disinformation. One does not read that ABC Baseball team won the 2012 World Series by beating XYZ Baseball team, and then argue that XYZ shouldn't be mentioned because this is the ABC article. As an aside, discussions about article edits should always be conducted on the article Talk page. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
After re-reading the cited source (and related additional sources), the content under discussion doesn't appear to rise to the level of "controversy". The various news agencies were reporting live from the courthouse as the lengthy decision was being read, and they corrected their premature misunderstanding of the ruling within minutes -- routine stuff during breaking news stories. As such, I've removed the content from the "controversy" section. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Rating Section removal

I have removed this section. For one thing, any section like this should focus on the entire history of CNN's ratings from beginning to a rather comprehensive and general present time. As it was, this section merely focused on a couple of recent months. Such information is very difficult to maintain, if not impossible, and should be avoided in an encyclopedic article unless the article itself is of the nature where such changes are notable on their own merit (a few months ratings, even if they a relatively important to the company, is probably not material fit for an encyclopedia). Another issue is that the section only focused on what might be construed as 'negative' news regarding CNN's ratings. There is hardly any doubt that in CNN's history, it has had significantly good ratings periods and significantly bad periods. A neutral balanced approach to this would delve into this and explain it objectively. This lack of treatment leads me to believe that this was a decidedly non-neutral inclusion into this article, probably by someone who is not a big fan of the network (just so we are clear, I'm not either. But I am a big fan of neutrality on Wikipedia).

I would ask that anyone defending or supporting this change respond here before reverting, or attempting a proper treatment of this topic, so there can be consensus and further discussion on whether such a section even belongs on Wikipedia. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 September 2012

In section 8: Controversy, line 4, faring is misspelled twice ("fairing") Baldtzu (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Baldtzu (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Done Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 15:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a company, shouldn't we list executives like other Wiki articles?

Most wiki articles that are based on a company have information about who the executives are. There is a list of anchors and shows, but nothing about the suits, which is important. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, this article is really about the news network. Not the company that owns the news network. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 09:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

I came back to add that not only CNN, but also Fox News, the AP, and Christian Science Monitor all made the same mistake about the Boston Marathon bombings. Arzel had removed it, thank you. But here's a reliable source for anyone who cares. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I read your edit and your source which should not have been removed. The only cable news I watch is YNN which is included with the lowest tier of cable service which is the one I have. I do not think your criticism was minor given the severity of the crime. 1archie99 (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
1archie99, thank you. You know, if every incident is removed for being too light-weight we would never have any controversy. And Arzel, I'm quite curious now. Why isn't Jon Stewart mentioned in the article CNN controversies? -SusanLesch (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

CNN fake news cast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98JDKB-Qmxs

The general public is becoming more distrusting of media, institutions, government. So it should not come as a surprise that citizen journalists around the world are analyzing the official Sandy Hook story to see if it can stand on it's own. Many are finding that the story has many holes, some tell tale signs we have seen before, lack of security footage, change in weapons, sequestering media. Alex Jones now goes on the record with his thoughts and analysis. He highlights some red flags, shows the CNN track record of faking news reports and working with Military Intelligence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tM5ZdO-IgEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.178.148.82 (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Overnights

Can the schedule be updated

Firstly, in line with the FNC and MSNBC schedules, to list the replay slots of primetime shows: Anderson Cooper at 10p, 1a and 4a, Erin Burnett at 11p and 2a, Piers Morgan at 12a and 3a)??

Stroumbopoulos is not listed to air at 11p on Fridays/Saturdays with replays at 2a and 5a

9.30am on Saturdays is now 'Your Money' with Christine Romans

1pm on Saturdays is now 'CNN Newsroom'

2pm on Saturdays is now 'Your Money' with Christine Romans

2.30pm on Saturdays is now 'The Next List'

9pm-11pm on Saturdays is now Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown with replays at 12a and 3a

Howie Kurtz needs removing from the schedule as he has left CNN.

The weekend editions of New Day do not have fixed anchors at this moment in time

2pm-3pm on Sundays is 'CNN Newsroom'

8p on Sundays is 'Anthony Bourdain: Parts Unknown' (replays at 11p/2a)

9p on Sundays is generally a CNN Special (replays at 12p/3a)

10p on Sundays is Inside Man (the new Morgan Spurlock show) (replays at 1a/4a)

Can't make these changed myself as the article is locked!! But the schedule is severely out of date.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.42.1 (talk) 03:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Union Busting

http://www.cwa-union.org/news/entry/nlrb_judge_issues_landmark_decision_against_cnn_america_orders_cnn_to_rehir : CNN tried to bust its union, but the NLRB ruled against it.

Also search using UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD DIVISION OF JUDGES CNN AMERICA, INC. and TEAM VIDEO SERVICES, LLC, Joint Employers and Case 5-CA-31828 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 31, AFL-CIO and Case 5-CA-33125 (formerly 2-CA-36129) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCAST EMPLOYEES & TECHNICIANS, COMMUNICATIONS WORKERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 11, AFL-CIO 211.225.34.165 (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for Interview and Piece on Promotion of Bluecoat Values For Malaysia

For Distribution of Wealth Via Amendments in Unused State Land Distribution and Abolishment of Taxes for Poor and Middle Welath Classes, I suggest that CNN do a piece on how governments could :

Distribute unused state land to do sustainance farming on (a simple thing to change law), and abolish taxes for the middle and poor wealth classes. There is no such thing as money or poverty, only land and resource distribution. Homes can be built out of mudbricks on that land for free - or for the lazy, cavelike-hovels tthat can become earthern bunkers in time (cavemen lived like this at sometimes for certain), food will fall from trees as soon as those trees begin to fruit, add a freshwater pond and dig a well to collect water. EVERYTHING IS FREE.

But the government makes people think they are equal citizens that ridiculously have no right to access the land that belongs to all citizens so they can cultivate their own food, medical herbs and wood for furniture etc.. Fertiliser comes from NIGHTSOIL and composted inedible parts of animals and waste food. No need to pay for fertilizer either. we can expect people who do not need to work (no taxes as well) but only wait to harvest their trees (perhaps make a profit from food sales to countries which do not have the above system), have better health, and being given land (if sufficiently large) which can be greened in time, automatically have better mental health as well from green spaces. Combined with 2nd amendment so that tax monies need not be given to police or army, national savings would be extreme and debt ended rather than the parasite paradigms of the day.

Such stupid voters who won't vote for politicians who will distribute unused state land and abolish taxes. http://malaysiandemocracy.wordpress.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4000:15:E4A9:26C5:9E2F:9DE2 (talk) 08:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

Wikipedia needs to have a few lines in the lead about the left wing bias (like Wikipedia has with the Fox News page), something like "CNN has been the subject of allegations of liberal bias. Writer Eric Alterman has noted that many critics on the left view CNN is more biased than most other corporate-run journalism, supporting business interests of its parent company and sponsors, and refusing to question official sources or present perspectives of leftist critics." This Quote is taken from the Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies

It is beyond serious dispute that CNN essentially tilts toward the Left. The article should deal with this. I won't make any change because any change would instantly be reversed by one of the many Left-leaning contributors to Wikipedia. That aside, the article should somehow address CNN's tilt to the Left. That is, if Wikipedia wants it to be a serious, neutral article.

Otherwise it will seem like Wikipedia is taking sides in politics, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinablue888 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

This article should remain neutral and on the topic at hand. The Fox News article should likewise be neutral and strictly on the topic of Fox News (I realize it is not). The bias here is not 'left' or 'right', it is a bias towards encyclopedic neutrality. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It is hardly "beyond serious dispute" that CNN tilts left. It is quite and continually disputed, and it depends on how you define liberal and conservative. A perusal of liberal websites such as Daily Kos, Alternet, and others will yield the conclusion that CNN, like all other corporate-owned media outlets, tilts toward conservative viewpoints, not liberal ones. MSNBC is the only corporate media outlet that could be defined as leaning left. By this metric, CNN rates as moderately conservative, not liberal, and Fox News rates far-right. PJtP (talk) 12:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

>> The mystery of CNN 2014 (Lihaas (talk) 22:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)).

Removing the Ratings/reception section

I really did try and and edit this for neutrality. Getting rid of loaded words like 'dominant', getting rid of emphasis of 'low' ratings, etc.... Unfortunately, this section simply invites too many loaded words and emphasis on non-notable and irrelevant information. Such sections are also notoriously difficult to maintain and thus inappropriate for this kind of article in Wikipedia. I am removing this section. Please don't revert that edit or otherwise put it back until there is consensus on how such a section can be entirely objective and is notable enough to be placed in the article. Daydreamer302000 (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Liberal Editorializing

This sentence should be removed:

Accuracy in Media and the Media Research Center have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories.

The two cited sources are both described by wikipedia as conservative organizations, and both of the specific references are just blog posts cherry picking examples of bias. The reference for Accuracy in Media is dead, but googling for an article of the same title comes up with a blog post complaining about CNN not refusing to air a NARAL ad. The reference for Media Research Center is a blog post from 1999 arguing that a single night's coverage of the Lewinsky scandal (!) was biased.

Measuring media bias is very difficult. There are lots of interesting and well constructed studies of media bias that include CNN that could be cited to argue for liberal, conservative, or no bias. But summarizing those studies would fit better on the CNN controversies page, with maybe a sentence on this page just pointing out that there is lots of controversy over whether and how CNN is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroldmroberts (talk • contribs) 15:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur. They are fringe groups that complain that everyone has liberal bias. Gamaliel (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

explosive allegations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zw9EhjyU3JU&sns=fb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.45.85 (talk) 03:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

wrt Octavia Nasr

The current article has the following:

On July 7, 2010, Octavia Nasr, senior Middle East editor and a CNN journalist for 20 years, was fired after she expressed on her Twitter account admiration for a liberal-minded Muslim cleric who had recently died, casting doubts on the company's commitment to freedom of speech.

A description of Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah as "liberal-minded" is not found in the cited article, and is, in fact patently false. Although some may be able to argue that he is liberal-minded, describing the spiritual leader of Hezbollah who supported suicide bombing in Israel is certainly not NPOV. As this article is protected for anons such as myself, I propose removing the descriptor "liberal minded" and replacing the generic "Muslim cleric" with a link to Fadlallah's wikipedia page. This would fix both the NPOV and the uncited statement issues.

--50.4.162.0 (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015 Add info about how Walter Isaacson to make CNN more neutral

Could information be added about how Walter Isaacson while CEO of CNN, met with Republican Party leaders in order to get advice about how to make CNN, which had been biased in favor of Democrats, more neutral and open to covering Republican views? I have sources, [1] [2] [3] . ECayce187 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

This article does not mention the original Crossfire that Patrick Buchanan and Tom Braden, among others, co-hosted, only the recent version. I think the original one should be mentioned. ECayce187 (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You are not required to use {{edit semi-protected}} to initiate a discussion on contents of the article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2015

A CNN White House correspondent implied President Bush I during his reign had been having sex with a woman not his wife during a press conference, and Bush replied, "I'm not going to take sleazy questions like that from CNN", and denied the charge. Later Bush's staff considered boycotting CNN, and told CNN leader Tom Johnson that they would not go on that television channel, stating "this included the Larry King show". Kitty Kelley wrote about this on page 525 of The Family. Could this information be included in the controversies section as an example of CNN's left-wing tilt?--ECayce187 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC) ECayce187 (talk) 23:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: You are not required to use {{edit semi-protected}} template to initiate a discussion on contents of the article. Please discuss your changes with active editors to this page and others to reach a consensus and use 'edit semi-protected' template thereafter to implement the consensus. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 00:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

Change, "Crossfire 2013–2014 Passionate conversations about the news events of the day from 6:30–7 p.m. hosted by S. E. Cupp, Stephanie Cutter, Newt Gingrich and Van Jones." to "Crossfire 1982-2005 and 2013-2014". It was founded by Patrick Buchanan, a conservative, and Tom Braden, a liberal, as a debate show. It features one from the left and one from the right and newsmakers as guests. Howard Kurtz discussed the show's origins in Hot AirI could use that as a source. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/business/media/06crossfire.html?_r=0 ECayce187 (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2015

In the controversy section, after mention was made of domestic criticism of CNN for its left-wing bias, I think the statement that CNN CEO Walter Isaacson met with Republican Party leaders to discuss ways to make the network more open to covering Republican should be added. I would like it to read after the sentence, "This is a marked contrast to domestic criticisms that often portray CNN as having a "liberal" or "anti-American" bias.", "CNN CEO Walter Isaacson, acknowledging criticism that his network was to biased in favor of Demcorats, met with Congressional GOP leaders in 2001 to see how to make CNN more open to covering conservatives and Republicans."Roll Coll quoted him stating, ""I was trying to reach out to a lot of Republicans who feel that CNN has not been as open to covering Republicans, and I wanted to hear their concerns." Sources http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/new-cnn-chief-trying-to-please-gop-elite/ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-08-06-cnn.htm "D ECayce187 (talk) 00:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  11:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It could be added in the context of discussing allegations of liberal bias at CNN. --ECayce187 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Carlos Latuff cartoon

Why does (Redacted) Carlos Latuff have a cartoon displayed in this article? This guy doesn't deserve to have any cartoons of his displayed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.88.177.153 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

CNN NEWS A LEFT LEANING NEWS MEDIA

I do not understand why you will label Fox News as a right or conservative driven media news outlet and not label CNN as a liberal leaning news outlet. In fact most of the news media networks are in the pocket of left leaning agendas so far left as to embrace socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.125.140 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the text you wish to add to the article and the reliable sources you wish to use. --NeilN talk to me 22:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Updated to reflect the new CNN logo as of 2014 that is used on most occasions now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cliffmore (talk • contribs) 19:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on CNN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Controversy section is obsolete

Xx236 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Unreliable Source

Citation 91 http://financialspots.com/2015/10/16/bernie-sanders-supporters-say-cnn-deleted-pro-bernie-poll/ If you read through this article, it's clearly bogus. The contents of the article are unrelated to the headline - it looks like the headline was mistakenly attached to the wrong article. Also, the further you read, the less coherent the article becomes. Can someone delete this and replace it with a better source? (It's protected) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadget142 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2015

| iptv serv 4 = Southern Fibernet | iptv chan 4 = 6 (SD)
1006 (HD) 216.66.32.34 (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

left wing lean?

Why does Fox News mention in third paragraph that is has been accused of it pro republican party stance and this page doesn't mention at all CNN and its pro Democrat stance?24.112.194.122 (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2016

CNN released their new font "CNN Sans", and they implemented in their chyron, replacing Gotham. Also in their website, and promotional images.

http://www.newscaststudio.com/2016/04/22/cnn-now-has-its-own-font/ BeemoZaslavskiMalvar (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.--Cameron11598 (Converse) 07:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2016

Please change this:

Overnight programming is simulcast with CNN International, anchored by a two-hour block of CNN Newsroom at 12 a.m. Eastern, hosted by John Vause and Isha Sesay from studios in Los Angeles,[24] and 2 a.m. Eastern, hosted by Errol Barnett and Rosemary Church from studios in CNN Center, Atlanta.

to this:

Overnight programming is simulcast with CNN International, anchored by a two-hour block of CNN Newsroom at 12 a.m. Eastern, hosted by John Vause and Isha Sesay from studios in Los Angeles,[24] and 2 a.m. Eastern, hosted by Errol Barnett and Rosemary Church from studios in CNN Center, Atlanta, weekdays. Natalie Allen and George Howell anchor CNN Newsroom from the Atlanta studio Friday through Sunday.

The change adds George Howell and Natalie Allen to the description of CNN Newsroom programming, as they are current anchors for the show and are not presently included in this wikipedia description. This information is backed and verified by the cnn.com website in the bios of George Howell: http://www.cnn.com/profiles/george-howell-profile#about

And Natalie Allen http://www.cnn.com/profiles/natalie-allen-profile

Eastcoasted (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 01:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CNN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

cnn=clinton newsnetwork.

i am the one who started this. i did not mean to cause you harm. i just thought it would go local please call me and i will take it down Shirley Reed Baggett 1 270- 856- 3231. on today's post it said i did not know this was going to take legs and go every where.my email acc is shirleyab1936@yahoo.com you can check when it got started. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.247.170 (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2016

Add http://tunein.com/radio/CNN-s20407/ to the web streaming options for CNN. Label is "TuneIn"

Ssakamot (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added to article. -- Dane2007 talk 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The Gulf War

Please remove Charles Jaco's name from the list of three CNN correspondents (Bernard Shaw, Peter Arnett, John Holliman) who reported live from Baghdad during the opening hours of the Gulf War. Jaco was not in Iraq at the time but rather in Saudi Arabia. I should know because I was CNN's Executive Producer in Baghdad at the time. Many thanks.Rmmw (talk) 06:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Rillington (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)}

CNN: "Donna Brazile out at CNN amid leaks to Clinton campaign"

http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html

74.98.32.53 (talk) 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

And? Where you going somewhere with that? --Majora (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CNN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Can CNN be considered a "reliable source" for Wikipedia references?

I was wondering if CNN can be considered a reliable source vis-a-vis Wikipedia references. I am not sure what this CNN "news" report is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faCDsx3Uhus

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mstrfWljPoc

but I think we can all agree that it is not journalism. Or even legitimate "commentary". Propaganda mill would be more accurate, no?

108.6.4.43 (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

This is a good question. Their political commentary is one sided in favor of Democrats and the Wikileaks info sure was damning that CNN and other mainstream media organizations has colluded with the DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign. FC2016 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

CNN cutting off people live

Should there be a mention of the numerous times where CNN had cut people off live such as when they were criticising Hillary Clinton? There are some articles on this, and many videos on this, such as when they had cut off a congressman who was talking about Wikileaks and the possibility of Donald Trump winning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonsenseop (talk • contribs) 22:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fake News comments

I think it's important to add recent comments regarding President Elect Trump's comments calling CNN Fake News. This issue does not appear to be blowing over. Because animosity between the two parties only appears to be growing and not "blowing over," in my opinion does not fit the WP:NotNews criteria, if this seems like it will be perpetual. Oh and Majora, one revert does not make for "EDIT WAR[ING]" (in angry all caps). Please, lets keep it civil and lowercase. TAG (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You reverting after being reverted is the start of an edit war whether you like it or not. It got you to come to the talk page didn't it? I'm going to mark that as a success in my book.

Anyways, it certainly is a news tidbit that frankly has nothing to do with CNN. CNN is not a fake news source regardless of what Trump says. Putting that here is certainly NOTNEWS and giving WP:UNDUE weight to a one-off comment at a singular press conference. If it continues I can see it becoming something. But as you can't see into the future it is better to just leave it for now. --Majora (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Majora Three reverts is usually the cause for a warning about edit warring. A simple 'please' instead of angry caps would have been a little more appropriate and lest hostile. It wasn't just one press conference, PEOTUS has regularly taken to social media to call CNN fake news. Also, I'm not exactly sure how many press conferences he's even going to have considering his general animus towards the press. Regardless, I will wait for more instances, but if it's keeps happening NOTNEWS does not apply and i'll put it back in. Keep it real homie! TAG (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
My apologies for the hostilities. We have to balance everything that is bound to be said by Trump regarding the press in the next few years with what is actually relevant to an encyclopedia article. I could see it being expanded to explain exactly why he called them "fake news". That would show both sides of it and therefore be just a little bit more neutral. It all started with CNN's publishing of the "intelligence" report (put in quotes due to its unverified nature). Just saying that Trump called them "fake" doesn't give our readers any encyclopedic value beyond, "yep that happened". "Yep that happened", is what we are trying to avoid when we say NOTNEWS. --Majora (talk) 03:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
No worries (I would give you a high five, but that's not possible over computers). He's called CNN fake (via twitter) several times before the "intelligence" report issue. I do think that in the future, a sitting president criticizing something "fake" (whether it is or isn't) holds an sizable amount of weight. Also, I'm pretty sure Trump's going to say this as a running theme for quite a while. In the future, if it persists, I would probably place the 'both sides' explanation in the controversies section and a brief snip-it regarding there being a general animous between the two in the lede.TAG (talk) 03:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

Political alignment Liberal/ Democrat 142.150.44.42 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Controversies section

I've tried to move all the controversies about discrete, specific events that don't seem to have had much of a shelf-life after the initial news cycle to the CNN controversies page, since the controversy section here was getting huge and unwieldy. Generally, I think it would be best to summarize broad types of controversies or ways in which CNN is controversial here (with perhaps the most noteworthy or high-profile examples), and move individual events outside of that to the subpage. The first few paragraphs (which summarize entire eras of CNN's reporting, often with academic sources that can provide a decent summary) seems more useful than a blow-by-blow that devotes a paragraph to every individual news cycle where CNN itself is in the news. --Aquillion (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, thank you for your edit. But it seems that you did not add the specific controversies about people suing/being fired/quitting to the main article about controversies? At least I could not find it in its history. Is that it or am I missing something? I think a mention of the Sanders controversy and the debate/WikiLeaks one falls under the same category of the initial paragraph that was kept (about the 2007 election). A summary about CNN election controversies would perhaps be ideal? Saturnalia0 (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Aquillion here. This is a general level article and most of this is NPOV fluff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Lead additions

Since this has now gone back and forth and I have tried numerous times to get them to use the talk page I'll start one instead. My feelings on the addition [1] can be found on my talk page. Where at least an initial attempt to talk about it was made (even if that was not really the proper place for it). I will copy it from there to here since my thoughts on the matter still stand.

Unfortunately, the discussion on President Trump's "feelings" towards CNN has been discussed numerous times. The President is not a reliable source by our definition of the phrase and his personal animus towards the media should be taken with a grain of salt. Leads are summaries of what is in the article. If you want to include that you can discuss it on the talk page and put it in an appropriate section. Then the lead can summarize that. Since you brought up Fox News there is an entire, large, well referenced section on bias in the main body of the article. The lead then summaries that. That is how the flow of content works on Wikipedia. Previous consensus has also landed on keeping such things, for the most part, on CNN controversies. There is already a section there regarding the retraction story.

As for your actual edit there was some problems with the references. The New York Times article does not verify the content. It does not say that CNN is bias or that there is public skepticism. The Washington Post article is from their blog section. Blogs aren't considered reliable. And I'm not even going to touch The Blaze. Just like I wouldn't trust what MSNBC says about Fox News.

The second part of your edit could also fit in the main controversies article. The main article is for major things regarding the network. If they lose the court battle that could be discussed but people and organizations get sued all the time. Being sued is not a major incident.

--Majora (talk) 02:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Majora, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda publication. Why haven't you deleted the criticism and bias summary in the Fox News article? Yet you manage to continually delete the same exact thing in the CNN article. The CNN bias is well sourced on the Scaramucci story, the Comey story, the Bonifield story, and the older Crowley-Romney debate and Benghazi-Rand Paul debacle are all covered among MANY other bias incidents and controversies in the CNN article. WP:Leads says controversies should be included in the lead. That's all I was doing in good faith. Also the public skepticism of CNN was mentioned in the Yahoo-Newsweek piece. Bottom line, an encyclopedia does not have one standard for CNN and another for FOX News. Either summarize criticisms, controversies and bias in BOTH leads or erase them BOTH. MY VOTE IS KEEP BOTH summaries.Aceruss (talk) 10:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Majora. The controversy section is quite small considering the 37 year history of the network. And, I question the James O'Keefe paragraph considering his history. I don’t see how this can be taken as a legitimate controversy involving anything that CNN has done and believe it should be removed. O'Keefe is certainly not an RS. Objective3000 (talk) 15:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia will also not be a proxy for the President's war with the media. As for the Fox News article, the correct location for that would be Talk:Fox News. Each article is its own microcosm and equating what is on one with what you want to put on another is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an invalid argument primarily used in deletion discussions but still invalid elsewhere). Any discussion about Fox News is off topic for this talk page.

As for your actual addition. Numerous times, Wikipedia editors have determined that using obviously partisan sources does not meet the standard for exceptional claims. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We can discuss an alternative that would meet standards and would probably be accepted by the community (although I don't want to speak for anyone else) but continually trying to ram something in will only result in multiple problems down the road. --Majora (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

But wikipedia will be a proxy for the MSM war against the president? Nice double standards. DerElektriker (talk) 10:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Objective3000 (talk) 11:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Then you should stop editing DerElektriker (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Careful now! That attitude won't get you very far at all. The point about this not being a forum for airing our own opinions is a valid one, of course it cuts both ways but using phrases such as "the MSM war against the president" suggest that your view is a long way from objective. Of course, you can hold any opinions you like but to edit Wikipedia you need to understand the concept of neutral point of view and be able to write based on a broader view than just your own political tribe. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Let's start following the Wikipedia rules and guidelines here. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says: In Wikipedia discussions, editors point to similarities across the project as reasons to keep, delete, or create a particular type of content, article or policy. These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. CNN and FOX News are the top 2 cable news networks. They both have large controversies sections which need to be summarized in their respective leads. WP:LEADS says: The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.Aceruss (talk) 20:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
A network being sued is not a prominent controversy in any way shape or form. As I've mentioned already, multiple times. It happens all the time and is not lead worthy. As for the actual main part of your edit, the President calling CNN fake news may very well be prominent. It may also be simple WP:RECENTISM and therefore WP:UNDUE. Multiple people are willing to work with you to revise the addition so that it has consensus. You are the only one prohibiting that by refusing to discuss potential changes. --Majora (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah your double-standard Majora which you have been called out for by others on here. A network being sued MULTIPLE times for racial discrimination by at least SIX DIFFERENT African-American employees is not a significant controversy? Are you kidding? But of course if they sue FOX News then it is significant right? As you have not deleted that part of the Fox News lead. http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2195956-class-action-racial-discrimination-lawsuit-filed-against-cnn/, http://nypost.com/2017/04/26/mainstream-media-outlets-sued-for-racial-discrimination/ Aceruss (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
False equivalence. Suits against major corporations are common. There must be a result of a suit for it to become notable. The Fox lead talks to the facts that Fox has paid out millions in settlements and is under federal investigation related to those settlements. Further, the CEO and founder was terminated and their most popular commentator terminated as results. Also, this is a WP:AGF vio, and why would you use theepochtimes as a sourced? Objective3000 (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Continuing to equate the Fox News article with this one is not going to get you anywhere. Again, this has already been explained to you. Limit your focus to this article and this article alone please. That also goes for you as well Objective3000. Please stay on topic and please leave Fox News completely and totally out of this. --Majora (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules:These comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Include any prominent controversies Majora rules: Include all Fox News contoversies in lead, but on CNN don't include ANY controversies in lead.Aceruss (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Putting words in my mouth isn't going to help reach consensus on the matter. Actually, it is bordering on disruption. My actual words have already been said, if you care to scroll up. Things regarding Fox News should be on Talk:Fox News. This is Talk:CNN (in case you were lost) and should be purely about this article. Period. --Majora (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Another WP:AGF vio. Majora made no such rule. This is becoming disruptive. Objective3000 (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

I would support some discussion of this in the lede, but the version used in the recent edit war is of too low a quality. I would recommend making improvements to the body of the article before re-attempting to add this to the lede. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Milwaukee Journal Sentinel August 16, 2001 Maureen Dowd Rushing to CNN's Rescue
  2. ^ http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/2001-08-06-cnn.htm
  3. ^ http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/new-cnn-chief-trying-to-please-gop-elite/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN/Archive_4&oldid=1142755040"