CNN = Clinton News Network

[sanman]

A montage of CNN video shows critics of the Clintons being cut off by its very partisan "hosts":



Can CNN really call itself an unbiased and credible news source with this kind of conduct towards others?

 

[Kobie]

Does it show other people getting cut off? Or does that not happen, in sanman world?

 

[sanman]

Does it show other people getting cut off? Or does that not happen, in sanman world?

I think the content of the footage makes it quite clear that CNN hosts are cutting people off without giving them an adequate chance to get their criticisms of Hillary Clinton across. This is why CNN is said to be the Clinton News Network. They're now one step away from Al-Jazeera.

 

[Kobie]

I think the content of the footage makes it quite clear that CNN hosts are cutting people off without giving them an adequate chance to get their criticisms of Hillary Clinton across. This is why CNN is said to be the Clinton News Network. They're now one step away from Al-Jazeera.

So I'll take that as a cherry-picked sample. Did they leave in the footage where CNN hosts allowed people to finish their criticisms? Did they leave in footage of others being cut off while criticizing someone else?

The fun thing of editing footage to advance a narrative you want known is that you can ignore any and all things that contradict that narrative -- leave them on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

 

[sanman]

So I'll take that as a cherry-picked sample. Did they leave in the footage where CNN hosts allowed people to finish their criticisms? Did they leave in footage of others being cut off while criticizing someone else?

The fun thing of editing footage to advance a narrative you want known is that you can ignore any and all things that contradict that narrative -- leave them on the cutting room floor, so to speak.

So you'd propagate the view that as long as CNN isn't cutting off Clinton critics at least 51% of the time, that it's doing a good job overall, on the whole. No, they should be treating people impartially and fairly 100% of time, instead of acting as Clinton mouthpieces all too often.

Don Lemon is an idiot who only got his job because of his skin color, and not because he deserved it. Every time he opens his mouth, you can hear what a mental lightweight he is.

 

[Kobie]

So you'd propagate the view that as long as CNN isn't cutting off Clinton critics at least 51% of the time, that it's doing a good job overall, on the whole.

Well, no, since that's not what I said. I'll thank you not to put arguments in my mouth that I never made. Thanks in advance.

No, they should be treating people impartially and fairly 100% of time, instead of acting as Clinton mouthpieces all too often.

So every view espoused on CNN is equally valid, and deserving of equal "impartiality"? If I had two "experts" on CNN, one who said the moon's color is because of sunlight reflected toward earth, and another who said that the moon's color was due to the type of cheese it was made from, both opinions should be given equal validity?

Sometimes guests, Democrat and Republican, get cut off by the hosts because they're simply babbling talking points.

Don Lemon is an idiot who only got his job because of his skin color, and not because he deserved it. Every time he opens his mouth, you can hear what a mental lightweight he is.

Don Lemon is exponentially smarter than you.

I'm actually surprised you don't like him more, given the fact that he has criticized the state of cable news (PROTIP: It's all crap!) and his own network more than pretty much every other CNN employee put together.

 

[sanman]

Well, no, since that's not what I said. I'll thank you not to put arguments in my mouth that I never made. Thanks in advance.

No, that was the argument you were advancing - ie. the mere presence of "some" inappropriate interactions is no big deal.
It's a big deal - it shows a lack of professional decorum and impartiality, and an overt bias towards Clinton and against critics.

So every view espoused on CNN is equally valid, and deserving of equal "impartiality"? If I had two "experts" on CNN, one who said the moon's color is because of sunlight reflected toward earth, and another who said that the moon's color was due to the type of cheese it was made from, both opinions should be given equal validity?

Everyone deserves to have a chance to express their views, and audiences can be allowed to decide for themselves. You seem to be implying that CNN should decide for the audiences.

Sometimes guests, Democrat and Republican, get cut off by the hosts because they're simply babbling talking points.

That becomes an easy fallback to justify any kind biased treatment, no matter how egregious.
I'd be surprised to see any examples of where those specific hosts (eg. Don Lemon) cut off a pro-Clinton speaker. I've watched a lot of CNN, and Lemon's biases are well known.

Don Lemon is exponentially smarter than you.

Nah, that guy is an ethnic token, who always sounds out of his league.

I'm actually surprised you don't like him more, given the fact that he has criticized the state of cable news (PROTIP: It's all crap!) and his own network more than pretty much every other CNN employee put together.

Lemon has never called out CNN for its pro-Clinton pro-Left biases.

 

[DA60]

So what?

Anyone that gets the majority of their news for CNN or Fox or ABC or probably any other major American media news source has virtually no idea about the world around them.

They are for dinosaurs.

Virtually the only things I get from those sources is a laugh.

 

[Kobie]

No, that was the argument you were advancing - ie. the mere presence of "some" inappropriate interactions is no big deal.
It's a big deal - it shows a lack of professional decorum and impartiality, and an overt bias towards Clinton and against critics.

Here's an idea: stop trying to tell me what I am thinking or saying. You might learn something.

Did they cut off other people or not? Yes or no are the only acceptable answers. Anything else is a deflection. Answer the question.

Everyone deserves to have a chance to express their views, and audiences can be allowed to decide for themselves. You seem to be implying that CNN should decide for the audiences.

So ALL opinions deserve equal time on CNN? You sure you want to go down that road?

That becomes an easy fallback to justify any kind biased treatment, no matter how egregious.
I'd be surprised to see any examples of where those specific hosts (eg. Don Lemon) cut off a pro-Clinton speaker. I've watched a lot of CNN, and Lemon's biases are well known.

CNN is on 24 hours a day.

Nah, that guy is an ethnic token, who always sounds out of his league.

Obvs, the black guy is a token.

Where did you get your journalism degree? I know where I got mine.

Lemon has never called out CNN for its pro-Clinton pro-Left biases.

Because they don't exist.

You want to do the Media Bias Dance with me? Have at it.

 

[Mark F]

Taking a position, then cherry-picking the evidence to support it, ignoring everything else and making no attempt to provide balance or statistical relevance.

This should probably be in the conspiracy theory section. It has all the hallmarks.

 

[ocean515]

Taking a position, then cherry-picking the evidence to support it, ignoring everything else and making no attempt to provide balance or statistical relevance.

This should probably be in the conspiracy theory section. It has all the hallmarks.

I would think someone would need to provide evidence something was cherry picked before making wild accusations, and drawing conclusion with no real basis in fact.

CNN is a pathetic news source, if the thinking is their content is not biased and neutral. However, if it's clear they are biased, like Fox News, its a different story.

Here is example of this bias from Don Lemon, CNN News Anchor, which destroy the claim they are neutral and unbiased, and which destroys their credibility as a claimed neutral player in the cable news field.

 

[Mark F]

I would think someone would need to provide evidence something was cherry picked before making wild accusations, and drawing conclusion with no real basis in fact.

CNN is a pathetic news source, if the thinking is their content is not biased and neutral. However, if it's clear they are biased, like Fox News, its a different story.

Here is example of this bias from Don Lemon, CNN News Anchor, which destroy the claim they are neutral and unbiased, and which destroys their credibility as a claimed neutral player in the cable news field.

How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of right-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
As a percentage, how do they compare?
How big was the sample?
Do you think your video represents an objective overall sampling of guests and commentators of all political persuasions or is it narrowly targeted in order to achieve the desired result, to support the pre-conceived conclusion?

 

[ocean515]

How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of right-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
How many examples are there in the video of left-leaning guests and commentators not being cut off?
As a percentage, how do they compare?
How big was the sample?
Do you think your video represents an objective overall sampling of guests and commentators of all political persuasions or is it narrowly targeted in order to achieve the desired result, to support the pre-conceived conclusion?

You're making the claims and asking the questions. Back up your claims. How do you know they are cherry picked? How do you know what is objective or not if you haven't taken the time to confirm either way?

Without such confirmation, all you have is opinion, which is fine, but worth what was paid for it.

 

[TheGoverness]

Taking a position, then cherry-picking the evidence to support it, ignoring everything else and making no attempt to provide balance or statistical relevance.

This should probably be in the conspiracy theory section. It has all the hallmarks.

Yep. This is definitely structured like your average conspiracy theory video.

 

[sanman]

Here's an idea: stop trying to tell me what I am thinking or saying. You might learn something.

Did they cut off other people or not? Yes or no are the only acceptable answers. Anything else is a deflection. Answer the question.

I haven't heard of anybody on the Left complaining that CNN cuts them off - so I'll answer NO. If you disagree, show me meaningful proof to the contrary.

So ALL opinions deserve equal time on CNN? You sure you want to go down that road?

All guests deserve equal chance to express their opinions. CNN doesn't have to invite on anyone it's not prepared to give an equal opportunity to speak - and we viewers would judge CNN accordingly, just as we can judge them by who they tend to cut off.

CNN is on 24 hours a day.

Meaningless factoid that we already know.

Obvs, the black guy is a token.

My skin is as dark as his - still don't see how this mental lightweight deserves the position he holds.

Where did you get your journalism degree? I know where I got mine.

Sounds like you got it from the toiletpaper roll that Don Lemon got his.

Because they don't exist.

You want to do the Media Bias Dance with me? Have at it.

Then what was the purpose of your previous comment about being surprised to hear Lemon of all people being criticized - just random babble from you? It's not as if he's a critic of media's leftward tilt himself.

 

[Mr Person]

I think the content of the footage makes it quite clear that CNN hosts are cutting people off without giving them an adequate chance to get their criticisms of Hillary Clinton across. This is why CNN is said to be the Clinton News Network. They're now one step away from Al-Jazeera.

Does conservative media not cut people off? Does conservative media not favor conservative candidates?




Seriously, people: turn off TV misinfotainment, read print media from various leans, and assume it's all biased in some way. Complaining about the existence of bias is absurd. It's been there from the very beginning (and founding-time media was far worse, to boot).

 

[beefheart]

A montage of CNN video shows critics of the Clintons being cut off by its very partisan "hosts":



Can CNN really call itself an unbiased and credible news source with this kind of conduct towards others?