The "Is CNN Biased" post, Poll edition..

[EGarrett]

that wasn't crazy's supposition - i was asking a question based on what his statement and was just curious how he sees things.

I understand. I believe crazy is pointing out that there are no votes though particularly because of the asinine behavior by Jack V. Savage. There's no reason to entertain a point of view that is transparently wrong, has no arguments offered in favor of it, and which has essentially zero popular support.

(you, on the other hand, ARE actually offering arguments in favor of your point of view, and of course we're talking about them)

in terms of the OP, i don't see CNN as being particularly biased for or against either of the two major political parties either. i do see the nature of their coverage to indicate a bias towards promoting Mr. Trump's interests, a position i've gone at length to explain and defend.

i've gone on to say that the rationale for this bias wasn't an effort to support to Mr. Trump's policy positions per se, but rather to ride his celebrity to topple the kingpin of the mainstream media, Foxnews.

- IGIT

Well we would have to go into the rest of the wikileaks e-mails to see how the other CNN people were biased, besides that, what are you suggesting about CNN having a bias towards promoting Trump's interests?

The only argument I've seen in my skimming the thread so far that would indicate that would be CNN giving Trump large amounts of airtime. But that's just a function of covering whatever will generate the most views for them. A terrorist attack, for example, gets huge coverage on CNN and other networks, but that doesn't mean they actually want to promote the terrorist's interests. If CNN's coverage promotes Trump, it's only by accident. Their real intentions are indicated by the unethical things they tried to get away with behind closed doors, which wikileaks exposed and which likely went beyond that.

 

[IGIT]

It's one case where any news network would essentially have their hand forced. To figure out what they do and don't condone we have to go beyond that to see how other CNN employees behave. And of course, wikileaks has provided quite a bit of information there.

hi again EG,

CNN has already confirmed that they have communiques with both the DNC and the RNC, and that such exchanges were business as usual. i don't agree that this indicates any bias for or against the Democrats or the Republicans.

as to wikileaks itself, i've found their releases of hacked emails interesting at times (i didn't need to wikileaks to know that the DNC colluded with Mrs. Clinton to put an end to Mr. Sander's campaign), though sometimes i've wondered why they've shown a disinterest in hacking the RNC's emails...or really, anyone associated with the Trump campaign.

i tend to take their releases of hacked emails with a grain of salt.

- IGIT

 

[applesbananas]

Lmao they're owned by time Warner cable who backed hillary clinton.

 

[EGarrett]

hi again EG,

CNN has already confirmed that they have communiques with both the DNC and the RNC, and that such exchanges were business as usual. i don't agree that this indicates any bias for or against the Democrats or the Republicans.

I'm sure they were talking to both the RNC and the DNC, but talking to them and aiding them, by providing debate questions or asking for prior approval on stories (which is a MASSIVE violation of journalistic ethics), are totally different things.

(of course, wikileaks provided many examples of journalists asking for approval on their stories, but not all of them were from CNN so I'd have to review which specific actions are credited to CNN employees)

as to wikileaks itself, i've found their releases of hacked emails interesting at times (i didn't need to wikileaks to know that the DNC colluded with Mrs. Clinton to put an end to Mr. Sander's campaign), though sometimes i've wondered why they've shown a disinterest in hacking the RNC's emails...or really, anyone associated with the Trump campaign.

i tend to take their releases of hacked emails with a grain of salt.

- IGIT

That is a very good question and someone should delve into it. Wikileaks, for understandable reasons, hates Hillary Clinton. So it's fair to take the leaks with a grain of salt, but combined with CNN's horribly one-sided coverage, it's not difficult at all to assume that the behind-the-scenes collusion and ethical violations were largely if not entirely in favor of Hillary, just as wikileaks indicates.

 

[lfd0311]

Has CNN admitted Trump won yet?

 

[IGIT]

Lmao they're owned by time Warner cable who backed hillary clinton.

hi ho apples,

do you believe that Foxnews showed bias in favor of Mrs. Clinton?

Foxnews' parent company (Newscorp) gave heaviest to Mrs. Clinton.


- IGIT

 

[EGarrett]

Has CNN admitted Trump won yet?

No, last time I had the stomach to look at their page a day or two ago this was it...

 

[IGIT]

hi again once more, EG,

I understand. I believe crazy is pointing out that there are no votes though particularly because of the asinine behavior by Jack V. Savage. There's no reason to entertain a point of view that is transparently wrong, has no arguments offered in favor of it, and which has essentially zero popular support.

(you, on the other hand, ARE actually offering arguments in favor of your point of view, and of course we're talking about them)

i've read through the entire thread, EG. Jack (like myself) hasn't voted in regards to the question posed by the TS. he's offered his point of view along with his rationale and has, in most cases, been answered with personal abuse that don't relate to the OP one way or another.

i've had my share of disagreements with him in the past and there are also plenty of instances where we see eye to eye.

*shrugs*

Well we would have to go into the rest of the wikileaks e-mails to see how the other CNN people were biased, besides that, what are you suggesting about CNN having a bias towards promoting Trump's interests?

The only argument I've seen in my skimming the thread so far that would indicate that would be CNN giving Trump large amounts of airtime. But that's just a function of covering whatever will generate the most views for them. A terrorist attack, for example, gets huge coverage on CNN and other networks, but that doesn't mean they actually want to promote the terrorist's interests. If CNN's coverage promotes Trump, it's only by accident. Their real intentions are indicated by the unethical things they tried to get away with behind closed doors, which wikileaks exposed and which likely went beyond that.

it's a really nice day and i have to head out for now, but if you read my posts in this thread, i've done my best to lay out my argument as to why i think CNN's coverage of Mr. Trump (in the pursuit of ratings and advertising revenue) gave me the impression of a "pro-Trump" bias.

maybe we'll talk more later, have a good day EGarrett.

- IGIT

 

[lfd0311]

No, last time I had the stomach to look at their page a day or two ago this was it...

And that's such a BS lie. She won by maybe 600k votes. They still aren't even factoring in Michigan.

 

[EGarrett]

hi again once more, EG,

i've read through the entire thread, EG. Jack (like myself) hasn't voted in regards to the question posed by the TS. he's offered his point of view along with his rationale and has, in most cases, been answered with personal abuse that don't relate to the OP one way or another.

i've had my share of disagreements with him in the past and there are also plenty of instances where we see eye to eye.

*shrugs*

it's a really nice day and i have to head out for now, but if you read my posts in this thread, i've done my best to lay out my argument as to why i think CNN's coverage of Mr. Trump (in the pursuit of ratings and advertising revenue) gave me the impression of a "pro-Trump" bias.

maybe we'll talk more later, have a good day EGarrett.

- IGIT

Your behavior in the thread has been light years ahead of the few to one others trying to argue that side. You also made a good point about wikileaks itself, that I would be interested to talk about in its own thread. All the best to you.

 

[EGarrett]

And that's such a BS lie. She won by maybe 600k votes. They still aren't even factoring in Michigan.

This is one case where I'm hoping Trump actually completely revokes their White House press credentials. It would be amazing and they deserve it.

 

[lfd0311]

This is one case where I'm hoping Trump actually completely revokes their White House press credentials. It would be amazing and they deserve it.

The Press in general is embarassing. He went to dinner and didn't tell them, HOW DARE HE?!?!?!

 

[Armbars]

Jack pulls people into battle and beats them with superior debating skills. He has the patience and itellectual capabilty of a typical politician who even in the face of defeat leaves you feeling like somehow youve lost.

Take this thread as an example and just /pat him in future.

 

[CrazyN8]

Jack pulls people into battle and beats them with superior debating skills. He has the patience and itellectual capabilty of a typical politician who even in the face of defeat leaves you feeling like somehow youve lost.

Take this thread as an example and just /pat him in future.

Oh he won somehow? He must have, look at all the people he convinced he was right and how he didn't devolve into name calling.....oh wait.

 

[Armbars]

Oh he won somehow? He must have, look at all the people he convinced he was right and how he didn't devolve into name calling.....oh wait.

I dont agree with 90% of his arguments and most of the time think hes wrong. My point is, even in the face of defeat he'll make you think hes right.

 

[HereticBD]

I dont agree with 90% of his arguments and most of the time think hes wrong. My point is, even in the face of defeat he'll make you think hes right.

No. He'll make himself think he's right.

 

[CrazyN8]

heya CrazyN8,

i'm curious, do you dismiss "scientists" who are climate change deniers using the same line of reasoning?

- IGIT

No I don't, thats a fair point. I more dismiss Jack based on his posts though, so having the results isn't defenetive proof hes wrong, but it is evidence that almost everyone here thinks he is and there is little to no incentive for people to be dishonest voting here.

 

[EGarrett]

Jack pulls people into battle and beats them with superior debating skills. He has the patience and itellectual capabilty of a typical politician who even in the face of defeat leaves you feeling like somehow youve lost.

Take this thread as an example and just /pat him in future.

Jack has no superior debating skills. He's a pseudo-intellectual contrarian who thinks intelligence is a contest of trying to cite the most obscure information. But he doesn't have the actual ability to sift through that information, so he uses it to support foolish conclusions that feed his ego, and then he falls apart when people see through his bullshit.

Have you noticed that he avoids me like the plague? Because the few times he's actually tried arguing with me, he's gotten crushed. And he always will.

I can run him out of any thread like an exterminator. And if he annoys me enough I will run him off this board completely.

 

[ehtheist]

Jack has no superior debating skills. He's a pseudo-intellectual contrarian who thinks intelligence is a contest of trying to cite the most obscure information. But he doesn't have the actual ability to sift through that information, so he uses it to support foolish conclusions that feed his ego, and then he falls apart when people see through his bullshit.

Have you noticed that he avoids me like the plague? Because the few times he's actually tried arguing with me, he's gotten crushed. And he always will.

I can run him out of any thread like an exterminator. And if he annoys me enough I will run him off this board completely.

Damn, you must be a generous guy, having chosen not to run such a buffoonish poster off the board in the ten years you've shared it with him...

 

[Jack V Savage]

Damn, you must be a generous guy, having chosen not to run such a buffoonish poster off the board in the ten years you've shared it with him...

I usually don't bother with that guy because he's kind of creepy and not really worth it. Funny how he interprets it, though.

I go at it with you, Pan, KK, and others who are clearly smarter than he is, and don't really engage with people like him, LI, second sight, glennrod, etc. None of the lower-level guys seem to grasp that. It's fun hashing it out with intelligent posters whom I disagree with. Not so much with lesser guys.