So journalists have to name all their sources now? Does that seem like a productive way to get accurate information in the future?
I've got no love for CNN but you can't discount an article because it sites "sources".
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
So journalists have to name all their sources now? Does that seem like a productive way to get accurate information in the future?
Man, its so nice to be back in 2015.
It's true. There was actually a tremendous plan that was totally being carried out flawlessly and the incoming Biden admin refused to meet with the Trump people and then on inauguration day threw that plan away and then ran to noted (checks notes) lefty outlet Rick Santorum employing CNN to feed a false narrative. Sure, sure. That all tracks.
Yeah I think there's a journalism law that states that you have to reveal names of sources to be legit. It's called the Deepthroat Law.
Such a weird story to take CNN (or TB) to task on.
Isn't that where you personally decide whether or not to trust the reporting entity?HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:58 am No death, just discussion. I dont see how the source isnt the most important thing as to bias. What if the source is intersted? What if the source has no knowledge. You dont know how to interpret the quote if you dont know who is saying it and CNN has no credibility left for me to trust them.
HaulCitgo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 9:58 am No death, just discussion. I dont see how the source isnt the most important thing as to bias.
What if the source is intersted?
Then you cite that within your story
What if the source has no knowledge.
Then they're not your source. You'd be a pretty shitty journalist if you couldn't sus that out
You dont know how to interpret the quote if you dont know who is saying it and CNN has no credibility left for me to trust them.
So any reporter that works under a CNN byline is a plant? You know CNN is not an actual reporter right?
Bob Woodward wrote:The idea that reporters should name their sources is way off the mark. Felt like that was universally understood.
Fanniebug wrote: P.S. rass! Dont write me again, dude! You're in ignore list!
I get your point, and a Biden staffer telling something to CNN doesn't make it a fact, but the false equivalency between Fox and CNN drives me nuts. Yes, CNN has Liberal bias, but they aren't anything close to a division of the Dem Party the way Fox is to the GOP. Fox actively works with the GOP in strategizing, and pushing agendas and talking points across their shows. You often see GOP leaders and Fox pundits reading verbatim the same statements. Trump took orders from FoxNews, and Hannity was essential a member of the Admin. This was all by design 20 years before Fox changed its name from GOP TV. GOP leaders and politicians freely switch between jobs at Fox and going back into politics or Party leadership positions. There are no journalistic restrictions or morals at Fox, just straight propaganda. I don't have the time to get into this, but there is an enormous gulf between what Fox does for the GOP and CNN for Dems.
Dog, you shot off your face with this nonsense because you simply ignore the reality Fox News feeds into the rightwing echo chamber.
They’re a much more trustworthy news source than Fox News. But yes, CNN is infotainment.
Right. Tell them a little white girl was kidnapped and they're not going to care if her parents are on the left or right.
How many 100,000s lives will be saved because Biden won? And how many have been lost because Hillary didn't?tennbengal wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 10:32 am Direct quotes and what not. Go start a CNN thread, for fuckssake. Deranged.
I think this gets it right - like most media, CNN is biased in favor of an exciting or alarming story that will get people to watch them.
Closer to truth but its more than just unbiased media hype. They are trying to split the market with MSNBC who was kicking their butts at one point. They are actively seeking lefty consumers and modify their "news" reporting to facilitate. Retractions are probably due to demands by attorneys. Done enough to know its a punitive damages defense mechanism.Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 21, 2021 11:22 amI think this gets it right - like most media, CNN is biased in favor of an exciting or alarming story that will get people to watch them.
And they're probably somewhat biased to the moderate left because most of the people there are from the cultural milieu as most moderate lefties - but also because the right is so fucking insane that any kind of equal treatment would itself be a sign of bias.
When CNN gets actual facts wrong, they get embarrassed and issue retractions. Fox doesn't do that, except as necessary to settle lawsuits.