Talk:CNN/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Left-leaning Liberal Bias

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

CNN has left-leaning liberal bias, with non-stop anti-Trump programming. While Wikipedia article for Fox News contains references that Fox News is conservative, we don't have any mentions in CNN article that CNN is liberal cable news channel. We need to be objective if we want to keep Wikipedia bias-free. CNN has clear liberal programming agenda and this fact should be mentioned in the article. Thank you. ( 174.7.172.44 (talk) 00:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC) )

Yes, I think for consistency we should have a paragraph is the lead section touching on the controversies/biases like on the Fox News page. A Harvard study showed around 90% of CNN's Trump coverage was negative. I hope a consensus can be established in regard to this. Critism can still be encyclopedic as long is it is verifiable - the bounds of this was pushed a little by calling InfoWars 'a fake news site' - it publishes a lot but this is very generalistic for an encyclopedia. But as most people dislike them the editors think it is obviously fine for a bit of casual bias! I think we can be better than this and make the CNN criticism objective and verifiable. What I have seen from talk pages is that regular editors talk about the under representation of conservative opinions - I am a moderate but (1) I believe a neutral tone is important and (2) more conservatives edit the site to help prevent bias. Froome2017 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The same Harvard study said that Fox's news coverage of Trump was negative. Should we say that Fox has a liberal bias? The fact that coverage of something is negative does not prove bias. Coverage of school shootings is negative. That doesn't prove bias. Correlation is not causation. O3000 (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

So if,"The fact that coverage of something is negative does not prove bias", then how can you apply this logic to FOX News and not CNN? I find this statement to be incredibly biased. By what standard, or research, was the FOX News Wikipedia explanation based on, and how was this same criteria applied to CNN or any other main stream news network? The ONLY way to keep Wikipedia neutral is to apply the same standards to each network. No mention of political biases, or non- biases, needs to be applied here. PERIOD. Otherwise, Wikipedia, then falls into the category of "BIASED" by default. Viewers of any news Network can make up their own minds as to what the information they feel is being delivered by the respective networks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lthayes (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We do use the same standard. The prevalence in reliable sources, as per WP:NPOV. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's own NPOV standard this obviously is not being applied. The ONLY way you can apply this standard is to not mention ANYTHING about conservatives or liberal biases in the Wikipedia definition. This so called "non-negotiable" standard is evident to be "non-negotiable" towards FOX News only. This is a complete violation of this "non-negotiable" policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lthayes (talk • contribs) 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

You misread NPOV. Wikipedia is built upon reliable sources. If the preponderance of reliable sources report something, it is likely WP will report it. And the FOX article is not relevant. That is WP:OTHERCONTENT. O3000 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I was surprised to see the stark differences in the ledes of Fox News and CNN. It's clearly lede-worthy to state that critics have attacked Fox News for what they perceive as conservative bias, just as it is that critics have attacked CNN for perceived liberal bias. Irrespective of the validity of claims of bias present at CNN, multiple reliable sources have described CNN as promoting liberalism and the Democratic Party in general. I wasn't able to locate any sources or study that accuses CNN of a conservative bias, although a few describe it as "centrist." Every study performed, especially in the past few years, has shown a clear slant against conservative ideology and the advancement of liberal ideology. There are zero anchors/hosts who are conservatives. CNN's audience by and large identifies as liberal, and has drawn a great deal of criticism from media commentators and journalists for departing from the traditional norms of objective journalism. There certainly should be mention of this in the lede, due to the wide reporting in reliable sources and polls to analyze specific claims of bias. I'll try to draft something up soon. In the meantime, these are some sources that we can use for references:

Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you read the Shorenstein Center study? It appears to state that Fox is a far outlier with heavily slanted views. When one news source says one thing and the highly respect RS are all saying something else, we do not call the highly respected sources biased. The fact that reviews are negative is not an indication of bias. It could be that there is a reason behind such stories. O3000 (talk)

I did read the study when it was released last Spring, and have returned to it several times since. For the purposes of the discussion, I am not interested in Fox's coverage or which news channel has the most respect; I think the only relevant question is whether or not sources describe CNN as exhibiting a liberal bias. It's apparent that sources say CNN is almost exclusively trusted and viewed by those who identify as liberal and that their news coverage is presented from a very liberal perspective, and the lede should reflect that. Wikipedia should not declare that CNN is biased, only that it has been accused of biased reporting by numerous reliable sources. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying the Shorenstein Center is not a RS? They make their point on CNN pretty clear.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying, and has been said many times before, is that the study in no way calls CNN left- or liberal-leaning. Claiming it does is WP:OR. O3000 (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't? At the very least it says that Republicans were cast in a much less favorable light than Democrats. Since you (apparently) deem the study as a RS.....and it (at the very least) says that...would putting it that way be ok with you?Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

No, it absolutely does not say anything like that. And, it says that Republicans accounted for 80% of the sound bites, and Democrats only 6%. That is, it was Republicans talking about Trump. In no way does it claim there is any bias on the part of any news source. That is your synthesis. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Really? It says: "CNN gave decidedly more negative coverage to Republican candidates..." In the "Tone of Cable Coverage by Channel" (on page# 32), it shows that 27.7% of their stories were positive for Democrats vs. 13.5% for Republicans.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a lengthy study from which you are cherry-picking. It also says that Fox’s coverage of Trump was more negative than positive. Do you for one second think we should change the Fox article to claim it is left-leaning? In any case, this does not show liberal bias. In fact, the study discusses this: Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative. News reporting turned sour during the Vietnam and Watergate era and has stayed that way…. Your claim that the article calls CNN Left-leaning is simply false. O3000 (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If you are going to compare Fox to CNN....show me anywhere in that study where it says Trump has gotten more negative coverage on Fox than CNN. In fact, show me anywhere in that study where it says Fox favored Democrats more than CNN. You can't. If anyone is cherry picking: it's you. You are also deflecting: my (new) proposed addition revolves around saying "Republicans were cast in a much less favorable light than Democrats [on CNN]" (not any left-leaning/liberal bias, which I have already admitted is difficult to prove). I have cited data from a RS that proves that.Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not comparing Fox and CNN or cherry-picking. I was countering your example to show your cherry-picking. I am not the one saying the article is claiming bias. The article makes no claims of party bias and cannot be used as a source for that claim. The fact that at any particular time one party gets more negative than positive coverage is in no way indicative of bias. It may depend on which party is in power. The party in power is likely going to get more negative coverage. It may be that certain people in one party have more negative things to report on. According to the study, Bill Clinton received more negative than positive coverage in every quarter. That does not mean that the press was biased against him. You cannot read between the lines or come to your own conclusions. We don’t do that. O3000 (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Your counter example is meaningless: it omits a comparable right-wing outlet's coverage on the same subject durign the same period. It would be meaningful if it showed Fox was more negative on Trump than CNN....but alas: it doesn't. Until you can come up with such a counter-point....mine still stands. (Backed by hard data from a source you yourself have designated RS.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You are not using the study as a WP source. You are taking a snippet of data and coming to your own conclusion. That’s WP:OR. We don’t do that. Seriously, until you start following WP guidelines, this is pointless. O3000 (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not doing OR. OR is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". What I am suggesting is a direct quote from the source. (Backed by hard data.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I see no such text in the article. O3000 (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

You must be blind then. It's already been given to you. And (so that I am clear) I am in no way saying that any statement should be added that says (without question) CNN is biased to [whomever]. If you'll note in the "Lede Revision Proposal" I endorsed....it is qualified as "perceived" bias. It can be more cushioned than that....but the data is there to support such a perception.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If I may just address a few things I'm seeing, I have read that WP:OR article from top to bottom, and I really think it's helpful in determining what we can and cannot write. The proposed lede revision does not contain any original research in my opinion. @Objective3000: could you let us know which sentence(s) in the revision you consider original research? I took the information directly from the sources as best as I could without outright copy-pasting but please let us know if you see something that wasn't in the sources. Without straying too far from this article, the third paragraph of the Fox News lead is informative: "Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, and promoting the Republican Party and conservative causes." That sentence is backed by three sources: Slate (a left-wing online magazine), a book called "Inside Rupert's Brain" (authored by a CNN employee), and the same 2014 Pew study that I used for the lede proposal here. Note that the Pew source only speaks to the audience composition. That sentence omits important details in my opinion and is a tad misleading, however it is in fact backed by two of the sources provided. Returning to the CNN lead, the first sentence reads: "CNN has been subject to frequent criticism of perceived liberal bias and reporting inaccuracies." This is backed by three conservative-leaning sources (National Review, Media Research Center, Daily Caller), four left-leaning sources (Politico, LA Times, The Intercept, Washington Post), and one non-partisan source (Harvard's Shorenstein Center). Rather than dissect the proposal piecemeal, I'd be interested to hear your specific objections to the content and see if we can work out the kinks. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

First, your claim that the LATimes and WaPo are left-leaning is without merit. Your proposal completely ignores the finding of the study it refers to. It specifically did not call CNN biased. Your use of “Clinton News Network” is way out of line. We would never consider using the equivalent, “Faux News”, on the Fox Article. Suggesting that the viewers are related to bias, by adding that to a paragraph suggesting bias, is not claimed by the article and is WP:OR. You cherry-picked data. You ignored the study’s conclusion that any bias is toward negativity to whatever party is in the news, which shows all the data that you included is misleading. Basically, Fox started this campaign years back claiming all the respected news sources are phony and Fox is the only "fair and balanced" news source. Wikipedia should not be pushing Fox’s advertis ing spiel. O3000 (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Just so we have a starting point: name some major outlets (in America) you feel are left-wing. You've already named Fox and the Washington Times as right-wing. Just what are the left-wing outlets to you? You just dismissed the LA Times and the WasPost in that regard.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(I am curious about this as well as I thought it was fairly widely acknowledged that those two papers lean to the left) Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Off-topic, and not anything I’d add anywhere. But, something I’d read a while back. Liberals tend to dislike slanted sources. That’s one reason you find a huge number of very conservative radio shows, but little in the way of liberal equivalents. I remember someone tried to start a liberal radio channel. It quickly failed. There are certainly liberal sources in Europe, and some liberal shows on MSNBC. Never used them as sources. O3000 (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's off topic but since we're on the subject! You readily labeled the Washington Times and another source as right-wing. Why the reluctance to label another source as left-wing? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It isn't off topic from my pov. If he cannot name a single source (other than "some liberal shows on MSNBC"), that tells you a lot about his view on the national media and why he will never accept a acknowledgement of CNN's left leanings. it rigs the game from the start.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Separated by point, since there are several. (1) There are many sources which say the LA Times and WaPo are left-leaning, but MediaBiasFactCheck confirms this: [1][2]. The leanings of the two papers isn't my claim; it's the reporting of reliable sources. (2) Which study? The Shorenstein or the Pew? Many sources have used the Shorenstein findings to support what they perceive to be liberal bias, just as the proposal states. I wouldn't be opposed to removing it from the list and sticking with the other seven sources, although it has been used in other Wikipedia articles.(3) I wouldn't be opposed to removing the reference to the Clinton News Network nickname, although I'd prefer waiting to see if anyone else echoes this view before eliminating it. (4) In regards to the audience, in my reading it doesn't appear to me that there is a suggestion that its disproportionately high Democratic viewership lends credence to critics who say the network is bias. If you have any specific suggestions to make that clearer, I would welcome that. (5) Again, I'm not sure which study you're referring to with this point (and I do object to accusations of cherry-picking, in light of WP:AGF policies), but the claims of liberal bias are supported by studies from 2007, 2014, and 2017. I don't see any sources that support a suggestion that all three findings are the result of any one party being in the news. (6) I'm unfamiliar with this campaign you are talking about but I'd rather stick with the discussion about the sources and the lede proposal. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) MFBC doesn't 'confirm' anything. I can't find an article about them here, their disclaimer says their articles are opinions of individual writers, and they allow anonymous users to rate without creating an account. (2) You can use the two studies to support all kinds of conflicting claims. But, we don't take snippets from primary sources to draw our own conclusions. They do NOT claim CNN is liberal-biased. (3) We don't use pejorative fake names. (4) Viewership is not relevant. Including it falsely suggests it relates to bias, which is not claimed by the source. (5) I have seen no study that supports claims of liberal bias. Look, I can find numerous sources that call CNN the Communist News Network. Here’s 122,000 hits, including Fox and Politico.[3] You can even get t-shirts. We aren't going to include anything about frequent criticism of CNN as Communism either, even though it's true. O3000 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

(1) If MBFC isn't sufficient in your view, AllSides echoes the same findings, and does not rely on user rankings.[4][5]. I think this may be a distraction, though. All sources for the first sentence are reliable, and all support the content. (2) I am repeating myself here, the Shorenstein and Pew studies are not needed (nor included in my proposal) for the first sentence. Is your objection with quoting the findings, as they are in the CNN controversies article? (4) We can move that to a new "Audience and Ratings" section a la Fox News. I agree that may be a more appropriate placement rather than in the lede. (5) Hearkening back to our (2), even without the two studies (or any others), the content remains the same. However, I would prefer we keep the Harvard study, as a network airing double the negative coverage for Republicans than Democrats is significant enough for the lede. Just to reiterate, I am not arguing that CNN is biased, but the fact that the network has been criticized for liberal bias is not arguable. Even pieces defending CNN readily acknowledge that the network is the frequent target of critics for perceived liberal bias. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of AllSides. The study actually shows how the relative negativity is completely irrelevant to bias or leaning. When Clinton was President, CNN was negative to Clinton. Now, they are negative to Trump. Besides, there are rather a lot of things to be negative about and he is always placing himself in the news through nearly daily TV appearances and Tweets. Yes, CNN (and ALL other news sources) are frequently criticized. This is nothing special about CNN. Fox and right-wind media have been running a heavy anti-CNN campaign for many years. This has been documented in RS. But, RS have not taken part in these accusations. WP should not aide these extremist voices' attempts to de-legitimize the fourth estate in the U.S. by suggesting validity. O3000 (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems I was correct that all this talk about whether sources are actually biased is a distraction. Let's get back to what the sources say. I agree to an extent, that all news orgs are frequently criticized. One could make the argument that CNN is the target of much more scrutiny than say, the BBC, but that's not really pertinent to the lede proposal. I'm perplexed that you seem to be saying that it's acceptable for the lede of Fox News to say essentially the same thing in the lede that we are proposing here (using a liberal online magazine and a CNN employee's book as a source), but offering six sources of varying partisan leanings is somehow aiding extremist views. You didn't specifically address any concerns with any content other than the inclusion of the pejorative nickname and the final sentence regarding the partisan makeup of CNN's audience. Did you have any issues with any other material? I think we're all getting close to being on the same page now. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems I was correct that all this talk about whether sources are actually biased is a distraction. Sorry, but that’s bullshit. As for the BBC, I don’t know what country you’re in; but the BBC receives more than its share of criticism. As for the Fox article, I’d be happy to discuss that there. I have objection to including any of the proposed text, as described in detail. We have had this discussion here many times, and I agree with the current consensus. O3000 (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I too am sorry that what was mostly a civil discussion had to end with an extremely rude comment and a failure to assume good faith. I have no interest in arguing about whether or not sources are biased. I saw you call sources "right-wing" and refuse to call any sources "left-wing" and that is worrisome to me. We should be paying attention to what the sources say. I will take you at your word that the discussion has occurred many times, but I don't see any policy that says that should squelch any future debate. Especially since I see several people that advocate for content about CNN's criticism for a liberal bias, and only one person who says that the lede is fine the way it is. Current consensus is strongly on the side of a new lede. If I do see you at the Fox News article, I do hope that you can be more polite should you participate in that discussion. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I forgive your lack of GF, incivility and apparent canvassing, which may have been accidental. But, there is nothing like consensus here, and you've made it less likely. O3000 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I didn't say or do anything even remotely near incivility or GF (good faith?). And contacting the initiator of the survey who is on the feedback request service is NOT canvassing. What is your problem, exactly? This isn't supposed to be personal, the lede revision that we are proposing is about a content change and has nothing to do with you as a person. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

DP, instead of this circular argument with this person, do you think a RFC would be better? At the very least it will get us more votes than we have now?Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please. I requested help from Atsme as I don't really know how to start a RFC and I thought a Survey was the same thing. But I know more people would have an opinion on this and O3000 is either ignoring what I say and attacking an argument that nobody made or just trying to say that anyone who disagrees with him is a right-wing extremist. He smeared @Atsme: on my talk page too, which I found entirely uncalled for. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

anyone who disagrees with him is a right-wing extremist Well, apparently you are now just going to make wild accusations. I realize that you are new and I don't want to WP:BITE; but this is not an effective method of gaining consensus. I made no attempt at distraction. O3000 (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

What reliable source has stated that CNN is biased? O3000 (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Many - pick one. It may be easier to see how many times CNN is cited in WP articles vs how many times FOX is cited.

1. [6] Washington Post
2. [7] News Week
3. [8] Washington Times
4. [9] Business Insider
5. [10] One News Now

That's enough for now. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

1. WaPo simply points, once again, to the Pew Study which is based on who views sources, not on any “leaning” of sources. This is NOT in any manner a statement on the political position of sources and does not claim bias.
2. The Business Insider points to the exact same study. Please don’t repeat sources and claim an extra source.
3. The Newsweek article uses extreme right wing, conspiracy sources Breitbart and Hannity and has a pointless image of an anonymous person holding up a “CNN Sucks” sign at a Trump rally. Nowhere does this article say that CNN is biased.
4. WashingtonTimes and OneNewsNow are right-wing and not RS. Certainly not RS on their views of competitors. O3000 (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Have fun with this interactive tool. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lede Revision Proposal

In light of the discussion above initiated by 174.7.172.44 and Froome2017, here is a draft proposal of how to revise the lede and include the information widely reported in sources. There is some overlap with the CNN controversies article. I think it would be a good idea to merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, with the below as the new 3rd paragraph:

CNN has been subject to frequent criticism of perceived liberal bias and reporting inaccuracies.[11][12][13][14][15][16] Research conducted by Harvard University's Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy and the Project for Excellence in Journalism discovered "CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates – by a margin of three-to-one" and "Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral" in the 2007 presidential primaries.[17] Shorenstein performed a similar study in 2017, revealing that CNN's coverage of Donald Trump's First 100 Days was 93% negative.[18] President Donald Trump and other critics have often referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network" for perceived support of Democrats, a moniker after Bill and Hillary Clinton.[19][20] In September 2009, a Pew Research Poll showed that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate the network favorably, and Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to see CNN unfavorably.[21] A 2014 Pew research survey found that 50% of CNN's viewers identified as Democrats, compared to 31% Republicans.[22]

References

Survey

• Support - RS support the change ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And I'll add... Journalism: Among consistent liberals, CNN (15%), NPR (13%), MSNBC (12%) and the New York Times (10%) all rank near the top of the list. WaPo published the same Pew results. ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support - I wrote the change so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that I support the new version! Additions and modifications would be welcome, obviously, but I think this is a good start. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support - RS support the changeRja13ww33 (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• No way - WP:OR WP:NPOV WP:WEIGHT Cherry-picked articles that do not support any change. O3000 (talk) 10:43, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Well given that at least roughly half of those links aren't from reliable sources, no. User:Mr. Daniel Plainview, please see WP:RS. That The Daily Caller runs a story over supposed fake stories isn't going to be good enough to get this in the article, let alone the lead. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I went through that article yesterday and I think there's ambiguity there even though it's really extensive. The CNN stories and claims that the Daily Caller calls fake are all sourced to other news orgs 1) The Hands Up Don't Shoot false claim was identified as false by the WaPO [23], 2) CNN itself confirmed the story was false [24]. 3) Washington Post confirms hard news anchor Chris Cuomo's claim was false.[25] 4) Washington Post and PolitiFact both said CNN's story was false [26] and [27]. 5) The Hill ran a report identifying the CNN report as false.[28] I am fine with removing The Daily Caller and replacing it with the above six links, but could you please help me understand why The Daily Caller isn't reliable? Is it because they are a conservative news org? Which other sources are not reliable sources to say that CNN has been accused of liberal bias by critics? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The one story, among vast numbers of such, wasn’t “fake”; it was mistaken and they retracted. The NYTimes, BBC, other of the elders in the fourth estate make mistakes. Inevitable considering the speed at which they bring us information. One of the keys in how we measure reliability is the willingness and rapidity in which they retract errors. The ‘’Daily Caller’’ makes statements that are absurd on their face. Putting them in the same sentenced is ….. And please, please stop the suggestion that we rate reliability on the silly, often transitory, measures of various political classifications. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose I looked over the first two quoted sources (the two Shorenstein studies) and neither says that CNN's coverage is biased against Trump (at least, their only use of the string bias is in The public’s low level of confidence in the press is the result of several factors, one of which is a belief that journalists are biase and Although journalists are accused of having a liberal bias, their real bias is a preference for the negative); what they say is that CNN's coverage of Trump is overwhelmingly negative. That doesn't reflect bias, just as it's no reflection of bias that (I am guessing) CNN's coverage of Mafia families is also overwhelmingly negative: what it reflects is simply the subjects' criminality. The situation with Trump is analogous, though of course I'm not attributing criminality to Trump and his family. I stopped checking at that point, since I don't like having my time wasted by misrepresentation of sources; if there are high-quality sources actually saying that CNN is biased (not that it reflects a sadly negative reality), please quote here actual discussions of bias, not whether coverage is positive or negative. EEng 02:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

EEng: This is what O3000 was saying. The Harvard study is used for the 2nd sentence and the 3rd sentence, and both sentences are direct quotes. They are quite literally copy-pasted from the webpage. As I told O3000, there is nothing in the lede proposal that says anything remotely near "CNN is biased" or "CNN has liberal bias," so we don't need sources for either statement because nobody wants those statements in the lede. The first sentence CLEARLY reads as follows: "CNN has been subject to frequent criticism of perceived liberal bias and reporting inaccuracies." The sentence is backed by six sources. If that's not enough, I can find several sources from every major online, print, and television news agency in the states and internationally that unequivocally state that CNN has a perceived liberal bias. I can probably find 50 within an hour or two. Fox News makes a much more inflammatory and damning statement using TWO sources, and one of them is written by a CNN employee for heaven's sake (the other is a liberal online magazine)! Your other comment about the mafia is a distraction, but NeilN just posted an article on my page that makes me think you shouldn't be calling people stupid on this article. I don't see why we can't just keep things civil and on topic. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk)

Perhaps if this is ultimately rejected on the basis of the sources it could be re-stated and requested for a RFC under the politics category. (Since another editor has suggested it's in the wrong category.) That might be bad form though. (Kind of “jury shopping” for a lack of a better way to put it.) Once consensus has formed......I respect that. That's one of the things about wiki I like the most as far as resolving things.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's not about "enough" sources. It's that the text, though the word perceived is in there, strongly implies that there's actual bias. If this is to be in the lead at all, it should be explicitly about the contrast between the perception of bias and the reality. EEng 17:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok I think I see what you are saying. How would you suggest we make it clearer that Wikipedia is not suggesting that the critics are correct or incorrect with their perceptions? "CNN has been frequently accused of inaccurate reporting and having a liberal bias by critics."? I'd be fine with that wording as well, if others agree. Alternatively, we could go the route that the Fox News lede takes: "CNN has been accused of biased reporting, and promoting the Democratic Party and liberal causes." Any other specific objections to the proposal? It's been suggested that the last two sentences be moved to a new "Audience" or "Viewer Demographics" section which I wouldn't have any objection to personally. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:33, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Whoa...wouldn't that be walking a tight roping toward WP:OR? We write what RS say - we don't analyze them. If FOX says they have a liberal bias, we state that using in-text attribution. If Pew Research has a graph that shows CNN leans a bit more to the left of say NYTimes and WaPo, we cite that article. Take a look at the Fox News article for consistency in the way such claims are handled (as it applies to CNN), although the content will be different. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pew   does   not   say   that. This is the problem. Taking a research article and trying to extrapolate the findings into something different is OR. O3000 (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Did you not see IF preceding the names which makes them examples? IF Pew Research has a graph...yada yada...Jiminy Cricket. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been consistently, and incorrectly, stated on this page that the Pew study found CNN to be slanted. When I asked What reliable source has stated that CNN is biased?, your response included two articles about the Pew study. Sticking the word “if” into this response serves only to further confuse the issue. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Repeated attacks on the Harvard and Pew studies are muddying the waters. Once again, a source that states CNN IS biased is not required, because there is nothing in the lede revision that states CNN IS biased. The Pew study is used for the final two sentences regarding the viewer demographics. Nothing in the two sentences says anything about "bias", perceived or otherwise. Atsme: would it be better to break the RFC into three chunks to crystallize objections? This is the fourth or fifth time I am seeing the Pew or Harvard study being used to dismiss the entire lede, rather than the content that the studies are being used for. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In no way did I attack any study. I merely responded to atsme's edit, which specifically used the word bias. And has been stated, the proposal suggests bias. O3000 (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

You totally misinterpreted my statement - that's not my fault as it is written in plain, easy to understand English. You may need to step back for some introspective on what may be causing you to read things in people's comments that simply aren't there. Worse yet, you are now accusing me of doing something I didn't do, so please stop doing that, O3000. Read slower, or something, or ask questions. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts, and the fact is, I did not say what you claimed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:05, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I stand by what I said. Please stop adding the words “geez” and “sigh” to your edit summaries. O3000 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The text is not at all supported by reliable sources. Half the cited sources are op-eds by non-experts or crappy sources. The few RS that are in there do not support the text. The study on CNN's coverage of Trump should be included in the body of the article, not the lede. That media outlets depict this presidency negatively is not notable in the slightest. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support condensed and rephrased significantly for brevity, e.g. "CNN has been subject to frequent criticism" could be stated simply as "CNN has been criticized." "Clinton News Network" is undue and Trump's criticism, while possibly appropriate for the article, included here detracts from the studies. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I am okay with removing the bit about the Clinton News Network nickname, but it seems improper to strike out a section after people have already voted. I am also game for relocating the content about audience demographics to a new section, and out of the lede, but I'd prefer to maintain specificity about the genesis and nature of the criticism. It seems inadequate and out of place to only mention that there's been a generalized criticism, since every newsorg gets criticized. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - So many problems: WP:SYNTH; inferior and unusable sources; misrepresentation of sources; WP:UNDUE.- MrX 🖋 11:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, chock-full of WP:SYNTH; conflates "negative press" with "bias"; conflates public perceptions with reality; undue weight for lead section. Requires a full rewrite to even be considered. Neutrality^talk 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. WP:SYNTHing up a bunch of op-eds like this with a lot of random polls obviously lacks the weight necessary to place them in the lead. The polls, taken as themselves (without the WP:SYNTH they're being used for here) don't say anything significant enough to go in the lead, while the few other reliable sources only say that the network has been criticized by Trump - simple criticism from Trump isn't that significant relative to the network's history and prominence, and doesn't go in the lead (if it did, we'd have it on a ridiculous number of articles.) --Aquillion (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, or to be more precise Hell no. The first sentence and the citations that follow it are classic example of over the top POV pushing based on a gross misrepresentation of sources, blatant WP:SYNTH with some cherry picking thrown in. Even putting something as obnoxiously POV as this in the text would be a straight up violation of policy. But there's no way this goes in the lede. It doesn't even summarize the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose this is ridiculously biased, and would be excessive even if it weren't biased. The voluminous partisan refs don't help. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:58, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support: fully compliant with WP:MOSLEADREL and reliably sourced. Using SYNTH to object to this is just another way of saying IDONTLIKE and these Oppose votes should be dismissed out of hand. Regarding "partisan sources" editors should make sure they know what our policies actually say:

  "Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints"

  — WP:BIASED

Obviously this is one of those times. – Lionel^(talk) 03:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

• And every source that you have provided has also been accused of bias. If you are in the news business, someone will accuse you of bias. That doesn’t mean that you are biased. We can’t state in the lede of every news organization article that they have been subject to frequent criticism of perceived xxxx bias and reporting inaccuracies. As for perceptions of how news stories in one election are concerned, correlation is not causation. You will find that nearly all CNN stories about Bashar al-Assad are negative. That does not indicate liberal or conservative bias or inaccurate reporting. O3000 (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I think someone would have to be pretty short-sighted to not see the left-wing bias at CNN. (Just watch their prime time lineup and decide for yourself.) You are correct that some of those sources indeed have been accused of bias.....but it's been a long time since I've heard anyone call the NY Times (or the Washington Post) right-wing. (The point there being that even some of the left-wing sources cited notice this about about CNN.) Of course, the other difficulty here (and always) is establishing just what is "bias" and where in the political spectrum it actually falls. Someone (for example) from Western Europe might see CNN as center-right. Some Americans (getting back home) don't see the NY Times as being biased (i.e. to the left) at all. (In spite of the fact you'd have to (for example) go all the way back to Eisenhower to find a Republican they've endorsed for president.) So it's very much in the eye of the beholder. That's why I try to steer clear of these arguments: everyone gets mad.....and nothing is resolved. (Hopefully it turns out better here.) Thanks for your time and thoughts.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The editorial page is not news space. We do not judge newspaper news content on the editorial page or op-ed pages. Both WaPo and the NYT have conducted and published investigations critical of Democrats, including the Clintons. I do not consider the NYT biased. O3000 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If "we" indeed do not "do not judge newspaper news content on the editorial page or op-ed pages" that in itself may be a problem. (Whatever wiki rule may overrule me on that.) It is a little hard to get around the fact a organization takes stances that are consistently on one side of the spectrum. (Whether it is on the op-ed page or not.) The fact that they would investigate Democrats is not relevant. We are not talking bias to the point someone would turn a blind eye to blatant scandal. We are talking a world-view/perceptions of issues.Rja13ww33 (talk) 19:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not talking about turning a blind eye toward a scandal. I'm talking about breaking stories. For example, it was the NYT that broke the story of the Clinton private e-mail server. Also, you might want to read WP:NEWSORG. O3000 (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's the same thing: virtually no one has suggested that bias means a outlet would ignore a story. Reading the WP:NEWSORG statement, it appears we can indeed divorce a op-ed page from it's outlet by focusing more on the specific writer. It may be the rule.....but it makes very little sense to me. If your op-ed page consistently takes the stance on one side of the political aisle, it's a little hard to ignore that. That gives you the mindset of the outlet....and mindset that would obviously extend to reporting at some point. To put it in another way: would you trust a outlet to be completely objective in all aspects of their reporting if their op-ed page was populated by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Me either.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, I'm not talking about reporting a story that others are reporting. I'm talking about being the first to report a story. As for the op-ed pages in the NYT, if you think the writers are a bunch of liberals, you haven't read the NYT. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you are talking about breaking a story, reporting a story, or whatever. Saying that implies that they are a one trick pony that just exists for a liberal agenda. That is not what I am saying.....and that is not what bias is. And I've read the NY Times plenty. (In fact, we get it every Sunday.) It's not my imagination where they stand.Rja13ww33 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the NYT is a biased source, go to RS/N. O3000 (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

My point wasn't specifically about the NY Times.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we may be moving away from the initial reasoning for the lede change raised by other editors. The sources overwhelmingly state that CNN favors liberals and Democrats. The amount of reporting on this subject, along with the current political climate in the states, make widespread allegations of bias and studies showing bias impossible to ignore. I don't believe it's helpful to delve into the reasons for the critics accusing CNN of liberal bias, or whether or not they're right to accuse CNN of liberal bias, since that's not how content is formed by my understanding. The sources all trend toward the same sentiments and findings, and should therefore be summarized in the lede. I see someone has started a survey on this matter as well, so I hope we can agree on a revised lede. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 20:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Some of your refs are right-wing and claim just about every source is left-wing. Some are polls. Some are sources that say that some people say CNN (and just about every source) is biased. We know that all news orgs are accused of bias by someone. A couple simply say that CNN made an error. All news organizations make errors. What this collection of refs does not do is document any preponderance of RS support that there is bias. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are the "Top Stories" on CNN's web site right now (see right hand side of web page): "10 m Cohen: FBI respectful and courteous in raid, counter to Trump's depiction; 6 m FBI raid sought records on hush payments to at least 2 women; 5 h See Cohen leaving hotel after raid; 8 m Opinion: Raid is about leverage; 2 h Reporter asks if Trump has considered resigning; 14 m Analysis: Latest sign that Trump's White House is emptying at record pace" I mean, come on....a blind man could see this.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

These are huge stories. Has it not occurred to you that there is a reason that these stories are being reported? Again, correlation is not causation. It would be bias if all this was ignored. You appear to think it is bias to report bad news. O3000 (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile go to CBS News web site. What do you see (right off the bat)? Yes, a story or two on Trump but also: Syria, Facebook privacy, Cosby, GoldStar family (i.e. human interest). On CNN, just about all of it is the Trump stuff that could easily be condensed into a few stories. (Obviously no one is saying "don't report it" or "ignore it".) Some people just refuse to see this stuff. Fox has some of the same devotees.Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

And the CNN main page has four image articles. One is on Trump considering firing the Deputy Attorney General for the United States, an extremely important story that could create a constitutional crisis. Two are on Facebook; and the last is on WWII combat veterans. Stop cherry-picking from one single day. You need to show a preponderance of RS that show a bias. Otherwise, this is a waste of time. O3000 (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I was (of course) referring to CNN's "Top Stories" heading on the right hand side of the web page. And those were the stories (IN ORDER) at the time I posted. They've also added this little gem since then: "Opinion: Why Trump chickened out of going to Peru" A quote from it: But how would anyone from the Trump White House even begin to take regional leaders to task on the issue of corruption when Trump's campaign team remains under investigation by a special investigator, and several have already been indicted on charges of conspiracy, money laundering, financial crimes, bank fraud crimes and false statements." Sounds impartial to me! Meanwhile Erin Burnett just wrapped up a nearly hour long session on the Muller deal. (With a touch of the Facebook hearing at the end.) Can't wait for Don Lemon tonight. As a game, just pick a show and count the number of times a conservative guest gets interrupted vs. liberal guests by the impartial host. (Don't forget to ratio it by the fact the conservative guest is typically outnumbered (including the host) by about 3 to 1.) And you are right: this is a waste of time. There is nothing anyone could put in front of you that would convince you of the obvious. So I am going to let this be it (as far as you are concerned).Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I have deleted over 20 times as many anti-Trump edits to WP than anti-Clinton edits. So, please WP:AGF and don't accuse me of bias based on the fact that you are unable to get me to agree to an addition that is not supported under Wikipedia guidelines. What I care about is NPOV. O3000 (talk) 00:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha, O3000, you too? I can't, for the life of me, remember how many Trumphaters I've blocked, how many anti-Trump BLP-violations I've revdeleted, how many a-hole remarks about Trump and Republicans I've scrubbed. Rja13ww33, you're new to the place, and you may well think that this is somehow like Facebook or whatever, but it is not. Many of us have opinions, but most of us are here because we care about the project and most of most of us can do a pretty good job of keeping politics out of it. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Refreshing!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:06, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

How exactly am I new to "the place"? I've been on wiki for years. If you mean this article, that is correct. However, I feel this article misses a very important point on CNN's coverage. At this point there isn't much denying it. And it's been that way for a while. As far as Objective's edits go.....when he said that, I went back and looked at the last 15 he had made on this article and just about all of them (aside from the vandalism, to his credit) involved reverting similar allegations (or those types of issues). So I doubt the sincerity (and accuracy) of that statement. Please note in a discussion above, I challenged him to name some major outlets (in America) that are left-wing. other than some shows on MSNBC he has refused to do that. If he doesn't know bias when he sees it....I'm not sure how he can be an effective editor here. In any case, I look forward to others weighing in on the RFC so this can be resolved.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

First of all, AGF. Second, you should look at a lot more edits than just the one to this article--that was exactly the point. That the editor didn't rise to your challenge means very little to me, though of course you are entitled to your own opinion. I tend to go by proven track record. Drmies (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I started out with AGF....but this guy exhausted that pretty quickly. (Notice his use of foul language with another editor.) Him "rising to the challenge" is necessary because if he thinks there are essentially no major left-wing outlets in America....the whole argument is pointless. And I don't know this person (or you) so I am just going by what I see here.Rja13ww33 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I only read left-wing or right-wing sources on occasion for humor value. I get my news from the Onion. O3000 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Ha, Drmies. Want to up your count, watchlist List of nicknames of Presidents of the United States. I’ve made 29 deletes there, mostly anti-Trump. I took the now deleted page Nicknames of Donald Trump to AN/I twice. And then there are weird places, like the articles on Humpty Dumpty and Cheetos. Who wants to look up a nursery rhyme and find more politics, as if the airwaves aren't saturated enough? O3000 (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Look at the sourcing for the first sentence. The first is a hit piece, an opinion piece in fact from National Review and it doesn't say what the proposed sentence claims say. It's just bitching about one particular CNN airing. The phrase "liberal bias" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE SOURCE. The second source is a report by Politico which just notes one instance where CNN made an error, which it then it had to correct. The word "liberal" and the word "bias", never mind the phrase "liberal bias" DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE SOURCE. The third source, LA Times, just notes that mainstream outlets and right-wing ones are "living in different realities". If anything, it's critical of right wing outlets for the junk they peddle. This is a BLATANT ATTEMPT TO MISREPRESENT A SOURCE. The fourth source is the Intercept and Greenwald, which is unreliable and is just nutzoid junk. That's all that needs to be said (I didn't even bother reading it so I have no idea if it's also being misrepresented). The next source is a WaPo article which notes an instance where CNN made a mistake. The words "liberal" or "bias" DO NOT APPEAR IN THE SOURCE. And then the next source is... the Daily Fucking Caller. No way. Not reliable. This is like the eight or tenth time you've tried using this steaming pile of dog shit as a source and it's been explained to you that it's not reliable (again, I didn't bother reading it, so I have no idea if it too is being misrepresented).

So. We've got two laughably unreliable fake-news/conspiracy/disinformation sources. You've tacked on a few reliable sources and pretend they say something the don't actually say. And then you got one or two which note specific instances of errors that CNN, like any other news organization, has made and synthesized it.

Can. You. Please. Stop. Wasting. Our. Time. With. This. Garbage.

Thanks.

Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

And frankly, if someone tried to put that first sentence with that sourcing into the actual article I would immediately file a WP:AE report on them based on the gross misrepresentation of sources alone and they'd probably be looking at a topic ban from American politics articles. There's just no way this can go in.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek: I am very taken aback by this. I don't know who you are talking to with your above comment, but this is really unhelpful and seems needlessly aggressive to me. First, I want to take down the temperature a little. Screaming at fellow collaborators in all caps and attacking reliable sources isn't helping make the article better. You are not assuming good faith by accusing people of trying to "use this steaming pile of dog [expletive]" and "pretending" that the sources support the material. Note the warning at the top of this page: "Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith." Please keep this in mind when you talk to other editors. For the content portion of your comment, you said that someone has used the "Daily [expletive] Caller" eight or ten times, and that it's unreliable. As I told Objective3000, not only is the Daily Caller reliable (breaks exclusive stories, corrects stories when necessary, has a fact-checking operation used by Google and Facebook), but it can of course be used as a source of criticism for perceived bias. If we're using overtly conservative or liberal sources for factual statements, that's another conversation, but that's not the situation here. If you ask me, we should just start the RfC over. It's not a real RfC as someone said, and we would be better off breaking it into three separate RfC's. I think the "Clinton News Network" section has acted as something of a "poison pill," so we should take that out and discuss the rest of the lede revision piecemeal. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is not a reliable source for a BLP. It is extraordinarily biased and purposefully provocative. Today’s top political stories are all about Hillary, who has not held office or run for any office in over a year, and their daily podcast is titled: “The Liberal Mob Is Swarming”. Surely you can find better sources. O3000 (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a discussion best reserved for a BLP. This isn't a BLP. Yes, the Daily Caller is an openly conservative source. It's not surprising that most of the criticism of CNN having a perceived liberal bias has come from conservative-leaning sources. It's also not surprising that most of the criticism of Fox News for perceived conservative bias comes from left-leaning sources. In the Fox News lede, we have this statement: "Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, and promoting the Republican Party and conservative causes." Highly inflammatory statement, yes? Three sources used for that: 1) a book from 2004 written in a much different media landscape, 2) a book written by a CNN staffer, and 3) the very same Pew research poll used above that discusses partisan leanings of its audience. We can go into greater depth on the Fox News talk page, but that should give you an idea of the difference in standards I'm hearing from opposing votes. On the other hand, the very neutral and factually correct statement: "CNN has been subject to frequent criticism of perceived liberal bias and reporting inaccuracies," is sourced to two current conservative-leaning sources, three current left-leaning sources, and Harvard University. The same sourcing standards are not being applied to the same articles. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is not the Fox article. WP:OTHERCONTENT. I suggest you take DrMies advice early in this discussion: User:Mr. Daniel Plainview, please see WP:RS. That The Daily Caller runs a story over supposed fake stories isn't going to be good enough to get this in the article, let alone the lead. Find legitimate sources. O3000 (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Right, that's why I mentioned that we can go into greater depth on the Fox News talk page, but it's very informative to get to the bottom of why there is such a high bar for sourcing such obvious and widespread criticism, and such a low bar for CNN's competitor. I saw what Drmies said, although the content stands on its own. We still have five other sources used for the content even if TDC is removed. We could just as easily replace TDC with 5-10 other reliable sources criticizing CNN for a perceived liberal bias and reporting inaccuracies. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

...but it's very informative to get to the bottom of why there is such a high bar for sourcing such obvious and widespread criticism, and such a low bar for CNN's competitor. Continuing to repeat this opinion of yours is not helping you build your case. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Well it's not only my opinion since other editors have mentioned this exact disparity already. But you don't disagree do you? You're saying that the same standards are being applied to the CNN lede as the Fox News lede? Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The same standards and processes apply to all articles and are successfully applied to high-traffic articles. Again, you can't make a case in this manner. O3000 (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, I respectfully disagree. The Fox News lede could use an overhaul after this one, but I will note that the supporters of the lede revision do not list the Fox News article as any of the reasons for the revision. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV

Considering that the article currently does not mention in any way the (liberal) bias of CNN, while e.g. the article about Fox News goes into length to mention the (conservative) bias of this media outlet (based on, among others, a CNN-article as an, apparently, "reliable source"), this article should be considered POV. See also the discussion above, which includes proposed changes to correct this bias. Reedseque (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• What you need to ask yourself is whether you want to contribute to this website or just complain about stuff that doesn't fit your agenda. In case you hadn't noticed, this isn't Facebook. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Correct Wikipedia's bias is a contribution. Unless your prefer the bias, of course.

Reedseque (talk) 01:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I am looking forward to see your neutral, well-written, and well-verified article edits, otherwise WP:NOTHERE is right there. For now you're just trolling. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How's this trolling? I'm pointing out a clear bias. How can CNN be a "reliable source" for Fox News' bias on Fox News, but are all provided sources (as listed above) "unreliable" for the CNN's bias? Keeping this bias in place is rather trolling.

Reedseque (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

How did I stumble into the movie Groundhog day? O3000 (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

By spending your time defending the indefensible with the help of an administrator who shares your political views, rather than putting your biases aside. There's a reason you keep finding yourself in the untenable position of arguing that CNN is a fair and balanced network. The only reason the article doesnt have what people keep trying to explain to you it should have, is for the simple reason that more radical leftists edit Wikipedia and become administrators on Wikipedia than centrists and conservatives. That's it. The facts aren't on your side. Reliable sources aren't on your side. And judging by CNN's ratings, cable news viewers aren't on your side. Stop playing coy and embrace your extremism. You're not fooling anyone with this "I have no poltical views and there's no such thing as left-wing sources" act. just say you're here to advance your agenda. You're not going to get in trouble. I promise Drmies isnt going to block you for being a liberal lmao. VM's been pushing his wacky agenda for a decade and he's doing fine. Just like Puxutawney Phil after the crash. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:9189:F08:D569:DF7B (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I’m sure that you know the “truth” and have a deep understanding of my beliefs. But, consider that misquoting people, casting aspersions, ad hominems, and repeatedly starting new threads on the same subject are not effective methods of gaining consensus. You need to find a better method of communication. Just some friendly advice. O3000 (talk) 01:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I happen to share your views on CNN (see other sections). But you cannot make a argument based on the content of another page. That is WP:OTHERCONTENT. (A rule I sometimes forget myself.) We may have to be satisfied with what is noted in the "controversies" section (and article).Rja13ww33 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:ONE_ENCYCLOPEDIA; to judge which information is considered WP:RELEVANT and which sources are WP:RELIABLE, it makes a lot of sense to WP:READ articles about similar subjects. The WP:DOUBLE_STANDARD which you'll then discover is simply WP:LAUGHABLE, which is more than obvious for anyone who's willing to look somewhat WP:OBJECTIVE to this matter.

WP:KIND_REGARDS,

Reedseque (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

There are a lot of double standards here. But that is understandable considering the fact that it is a different set of editors with different knowledge bases for each article. Different editors bring different perceptions. But that's just how it is at this point.Rja13ww33 (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Here are several Wikipedia policies and guidelines that we can use to get this right:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (summarize controversies in lede) Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources(make sure to include majority and significant minority viewpoints) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22 (Do Not revert solely to "no consensus") Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (these comparisons to other cable news networks are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes).Aceruss (talk) 05:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2018

For the 2014–15 season, after cancelling Piers Morgan Tonight (which, itself, replaced the long-running Larry King Live), CNN experimented → experimented ←

Change "experimented experimented" to "experimented" 68.99.18.93 (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Done, thank you. O3000 (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Re-affirmation that wikipedia has a clear bias and illogical editors

WP:NOTFORUM -O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yes "this again" its almost like you are trying to ignore reality and the consequences of ignoring reality is a never ending tide of people arriving to inform you that you are ignoring reality. CNN clearly has a left wing bias its visible from across the world yet wikipedia doesn't have this on their article not because no one got around to adding it but because Wikipedia has decided its not true... The justification for this is reliable sources have to say this, and conveniently reliable sources includes CNN. So effectively Wikipedia endorses and inherits the bias of the "reliable sources", since there is no effort on behalf of the biased editors to rectify the problem and develop a parallel system to support a claim added to wikipedia anything not reported by "reliable sources" becomes unreliable. This is ironically conservative and inflexible. Additionally ridiculous unsupported ad hominoms by one editor against another should not come out of the mouth of senior editors its highly unprofessional, literally illogical and weaselly. These actions by editors are the reason wikipedia is a near useless research tool for anything political, there is no limit to the to the size a webpage can be so there is no reason except deception or clarity of "the message" to conceal and prevent documentation of discussions in the modern world relating to any subject. I have seen editors claim that content should not be added to a page because the discussion would allow users to go away choosing what to believe, rather than the editors telling them what to believe. This is the same methodology employed when writing propaganda and should not be considered when trying to write an encyclopedia. I strongly recommend a review of the "reliable sources" rule, it seems to be applied inconsistently and is heavily employed as a weaselly tool for political censorship of what I can only assume are political minorities on the website. Here is an example methodology still using the reliable sources rule, if the absence of evidence from reliable sources is sufficient ignore the null hypothesis then an edit with a source can be taken to be temporarily valid. This is falsifiable and thus any unreliable source with information that is false will easily be falsified and the justifiably deleted. To prevent abuse this should require edits passing through talk to allow people time to see if "reliable sources" can confirm the null hypothesis. The current system is unscientific asserting that the absence of evidence from "reliable sources" is evidence of the absence of whatever is being proposed. Can something please happen about this, I am sick of having to go and research a topic when the only reason wikipedia doesn't have the information is censorship. NotAsian (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

CNN ratings decline

According to these sources [29][30][31] CNN's ratings have been declinging by a lot. Is this noteworthy? --2001:8003:4023:D900:459B:F770:3EAF:ECAB (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

That's one source, and it's a bad one. Looking around, results are more complex. O3000 (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Chris Cuomo now has the 9pm slot on CNN

In 2018 Anderson Cooper's second hour has now been given to Cuomo's show, as described in the article at: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/3/chris-cuomo-cnn-laments-fox-news-msnbc-viewers-ret/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearts (talk • contribs) 22:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 Already done Saucy^{[talk – contribs]} 03:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Not useful O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia is biased toward the Democratic Party — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConsiderThese (talk • contribs) 04:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC) Firstly, sign your comments in the usual way. Secondly, Wikipedia is neutral, how can I be biased to the Democratic Party when I and many other editors live in the UK and other parts of the world? Please refrain from silly, unsourced, comments. David J Johnson (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2018 (UTC) You are not required to live anywhere to exhibit any bias and wikipedia does have a fair few activist editors. But that is irrelevant this comment does not relate directly with the article and does not contribute towards bettering wikipedia so unless someone wants to suggest a way to mitigate this perception of bias this section should close under not forum rule WP:NOTFORUM NotAsian (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Shorenstein study again

@Cement4802: has added the same text to the CNN article five times over the last month and been reverted by two editors a total of four times. I reverted three of those times and you could call this edit warring. But, I’m am restoring as per an RfC (started by a blocked sock).[32] Note, the article is under 1RR which the last edit violated. It’s also under BRD restrictions which have been violated. I did not take to AE or EW as the editor had not been warned until now. I suggest someone revert the 1RR violation. O3000 (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

CNN legal analyst says black people can have white privilege

Sock PackMecEng (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
CNN legal analyst Areva Martin has accused Sirius XM radio host David Webb of having white privilege, despite the fact that Webb is black. Here’s a transcript: David Webb: “Shouldn’t their requirement, their primary requirement, regardless of ethnicity, regardless of network, be that they are capable of covering politics? For instance, if you’re going to cover political campaigns, sports may not be the most qualified background. And that brings to the point of if people want to get into these fields regardless of color, I’ve chosen to cross different parts of the media world, done the work so that I’m qualified to be in each one. I never considered my color the issue. I considered my qualifications the issue.” Areva Martin: “Well David, you know that’s a whole other long conversation about white privilege and things that you have the privilege of doing that people of color don’t have the privilege of.” David Webb: “How do I have the privilege of white privilege?” Areva Martin: “David, by virtue of being a white male, you have white privilege, which is a whole long conversation I don’t have time to get into.” Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2019/01/15/cnn-analyst-called-out-fox-news-contributor-his-white-privilege-hes-black/?utm_term=.0dc9c7087805 https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/cnn-legal-analyst-areva-martin-accuses-david-webb-of-white-privilege-before-learning-hes-black https://www.theblaze.com/news/cnn-analysts-white-privilege-black-conservative https://freebeacon.com/politics/cnn-analyst-accuses-fox-news-contributor-of-benefiting-from-white-privilege-hes-black/ https://ijr.com/david-webb-blasts-cnn-analyst-accusing-him-of-white-privilege/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSHyAwErdFM Thaddeus Bradshaw (talk) 02:50, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Yeah I heard that this afternoon, rather hilarious to be honest. But that said I do not think it really has a place in the article since there is no sign of lasting impact just yet. If something happens with Martin or the network as a whole then perhaps but at the moment I would say no. PackMecEng (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

Cnn is fake news. They side with the left. They became bias during the Obama era. 47.221.171.137 (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

CNN liberal bias

Editors this should be placed within the top 2 paragraphs of the CNN Wikipedia page:

CNN has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Democratic Party, and liberal politics in general. Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall. CNN employees have said that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, while former employees have said that CNN ordered them to "slant the news in favor of liberalism ."

Now your probably going to say where are the sources for this information. I am going to say EVERYWHERE!!!! Look for yourself. This exact language was taken from the FOX NEWS wikipedia page from paragraph 2. The words Fox News has been changed to CNN and the word conservative changed to liberal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.21.199.66 (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, there should be equal treatment given to the networks. Why put Fox News's conservative bias in the introduction of the article while putting CNN's liberal bias at the bottom? This gives the reader to believe Wikipedia has a bias and agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.96.191.130 (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

There is indeead a very disappointing lack of information on CNN's left wing bias on this article, yet again showcasing the power of the entire website's bias. The Fox News article for example is immediately described as a biased and nonfactual news source in the first section of it. I wouldn't even bother to attempt to add this information to the CNN since no doubt the democratic gatekeepers of Wikipedia would have it removed immediately. It's a real shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjarkk (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jjarkk: There are independent articles about CNN controversies and Fox News controversies, did you know that? I think you can help there.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@SharabSalam: Yes, I obviously did. I'm addressing the bias on the main articles, that are very prevalent seeing that Fox News is discredited in the very first section, in contrast to CNN's bias hardly being covered anywhere on the actual page. Don't pretend you're ignorant of this fact to push your bias.--Jjarkk (talk) 04:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jjarkk: I am just asking if you know that such articles exist. I am not saying that this article is biased or not I dont have any opinion about it. BTW this is not s social network or something if you personally attack another editor you will get blocked.--SharabSalam (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

CNN falsification of Venezuela Story

Back in February of 2019, CNN created a completely false story about the burning of several Humanitarian Aid trucks in Venezuela. They falsely stated that “a CNN team saw incendiary devices from police on the Venezuelan side of the border ignite the trucks.” IN reality, it was anti-Maduro protestors that did this. The story was picked up by several other news organizations and it was as the unquestionable truth until an NYT exposé revealed that it was in fact false. This is a major controversy that isn't covered in this article and I think should be addressed as a tendency towards a pro-war bias. I'm new to the talk page but I thought this issue was important so I made an account. I'd love to help someone write this if anyone sees it as pressing as I do.

Wikiteverett (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't seem that there is enough coverage of this controversy so it's not notable enough to be included in this article. Also, publishing false/fake news isn't something that is unusual for the CNN or any American news outlets. It's not that big news.--SharabSalam (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

If you admit that it's not uncommon for CNN to misreport shouldn't that be discussed in the article? And seeing as it had a widespread impact on just about every other news organization, doesn't that also seem relevant to their organization as whole? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-aid-fire-video.html

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/ Wikiteverett (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

CNN Reddit controversy

Should the CNN article include now two(three?) events where CNN has revealed the real identity and address of online personas? It appears as if the organization uses personal information as blackmail against persons online to silence them. They admit it on their own website and The independent has also made an article about the same incident. Personally I believe that cases of deliberate blackmail like this should be shown prominently on the page but I defer to a consensus on how before that happens/doesn't happen. Constalation(talk) 09:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

How does the CNN statement: "Any assertion that the network coerced or blackmailed [the user] is false" translate as an admission of blackmail? Please do not make accusations of crimes here. You can find a prior discussion at Talk:CNN/Archive 5. WP:UNDUE O3000 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

"Any assertion that the network coerced or blackmailed [the user] is false" does not exist in CNN article linked. That is in the Independant's article. Either way, this isn't a question of criminal accusations. This information is on CNN_controversies article but not on this primary page. I am questioning whether this should be in the primary article. Constalation(talk) 22:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

You are accusing CNN of committing crimes. CNN denied this crime. The CNN reporter involved received threats as a result. We don't accuse anyone of crimes based on our opinions. No such charges have been filed against CNN in the two years since Reddit users made this accusation. This has been discussed. WP:UNDUE O3000 (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not accusing CNN of a crime. It is easier to refer to the incidents as "blackmail" because most recognize what the user is referencing when mentioning the occurrences. Constalation(talk) 22:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2019

Both Fox News and CNN are politically biased. They are two sides to the same evil coin. In the Fox News page, the editors go into great detail on Fox's clear political bias. But on the CNN page there is no mention of CNN being politically biased which it clearly is. I see this as a disservice to the readers and a huge black mark on Wikipedia's reputation as an honest arbitrator. CNN's page should accurately reflect their clear political bias. McKirby62 (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. What happens on other articles is WP:OTHERCONTENT and is not relevant to this article. This has been discussed at great length here in the past. If you have a suggestion for an addition that is reliably sourced, you can make it. O3000 (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

One could import the controversies detailed in the "CNN Controversies" article to create the bulk contained in the FoxNews article. What happens in the FoxNews and MSNBC articles is ABSOLUTELY relevant to this article. As currently published the three articles call into question Wikipedia's commitment to neutral POV. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:29, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Summary of reputation in intro

I noticed the other that the intro to this article, while good with metrics and other straightforward data points, was lacking any summary of CNN's reputation, which is covered in the controversies section (which could use a lot of improvement, but nevertheless exists). Just as we provide summaries of how critics perceive a film, I think we ought to provide a brief, neutral summary of how media scholars and others perceive CNN. To this end, I added the following to a new paragraph half way down the intro, deferring to the body of the article for sourcing per MOS:LEADCITE:

The network is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic, and for its efforts to be nonpartisan, which has led to accusations of false balance.

David J Johnson (talk · contribs) reverted this addition with summary "unsourced and WP:OR comment". For sourcing, I'd offer these as references [33][34][35][36]. (This list is very much non-exhaustive.) Do others support adding this or something like it to the article? - Sdkb (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Seeing no objections and the required waiting period having elapsed twice, I'm going to reinstate the edit with the sources. I am happy to continue discussion here if anyone wishes. - Sdkb (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This should have been done in the first instance, not inserting comments without sources. The only remaining question is - are they reliable secondary sources? Case closed. David J Johnson (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

CNN's efforts to be non-partisan are non-existent. WBcoleman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)