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

[The Diplomat]

https://datascience.berkeley.edu/data-media-map-bitly/

This seems to be basing political bias on what states goto for their news, and the study is using a 2004 experiment that based media bias on what they actually said during their stories. Not exactly the most relevant study in 2016. This election cycle was the most biased/obvious they have been. They weren't like this in 2004, or 2008 even.

Fox News is clearly biased towards republicans/conservatives, although they did their fair share of Trump bashing this cycle aswell. I think most media pundits decided that Trump was going to be bad for America. That's fine, but as this thread is about CNN, it's extremely hard to watch it and not see a clear bias towards Clinton/anti-Trump.

There's taking some stupid shit Trump said and replaying it, which is just reporting news - and then there's running those sound bites into the ground with a clear agenda. Should be easy to tell what they were doing.

 

[Sdeev]

Ah crap, I'm one of the idiots who voted "towards republicans". I meant democrats.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This seems to be basing political bias on what states goto for their news, and the study is using a 2004 experiment that based media bias on what they actually said during their stories. Not exactly the most relevant study in 2016. This election cycle was the most biased/obvious they have been. They weren't like this in 2004, or 2008 even.

You think they changed in 2016? Isn't a more plausible explanation just that your own bias fucked with your judgment?

One thing I'd say that I think every honest person can agree with is that regardless of whether a news organization is based toward a particular party or not, people will think that it is, and it's the right that has played that card much more heavily. So to really answer the question, IMO, requires serious study, and any way you look at it, the claims about CNN just don't stand up. One thing I've pointed out, and this is general but applies to CNN too, is that the MSM devoted far, far more time to Clinton's email server thing than any other issue in the campaign. That was the defining issue of the campaign from the perspective of the MSM, including CNN.

And more generally still, there are lots of issues like that (a lot of people are going to believe X regardless of whether X is true), and I think they always require a look at hard evidence.

 

[Hard To Tell]

Didn't someone from CNN lose their job for giving debate questions to a presidential candidate (Clinton) in advance?

Yes, but according Jack bringing this up is mere 'right-wing cheerleading' and no evidence of any bias.

It's also worth noting that Donna Brazile, the CNN contributor and DNC member who was supplying Clinton with questions in advance of CNN sponsored candidate events, was only rumbled and ultimately lost her job because she was exposed by wikileaks. If not she'd no doubt still be working for CNN and no one would have a clue.

 

[The Diplomat]

You think they changed in 2016? Isn't a more plausible explanation just that your own bias fucked with your judgment?

I didn't have a bias, as I equally disliked Trump and Hillary. I was more biased years ago, as I wanted Kerry and Obama to win. At those times, I would have said CNN was the more "middle ground" station sandwiched between MSNBC (total leftist) and Fox News (total right-winger). But this cycle was more obvious than others, in terms of "bias". Anyone who watches Don Lemon, Erin Burnett, Wolf Blitzer, Brooke Baldwin, Jake Tapper, etc. can tell who they wanted.

One thing I'd say that I think every honest person can agree with is that regardless of whether a news organization is based toward a particular party or not, people will think that it is, and it's the right that has played that card much more heavily. So to really answer the question, IMO, requires serious study, and any way you look at it, the claims about CNN just don't stand up. One thing I've pointed out, and this is general but applies to CNN too, is that the MSM devoted far, far more time to Clinton's email server thing than any other issue in the campaign. That was the defining issue of the campaign from the perspective of the MSM, including CNN.

And more generally still, there are lots of issues like that (a lot of people are going to believe X regardless of whether X is true), and I think they always require a look at hard evidence.

CNN also tried to dissuade their audience from actually looking at Clinton's emails, by saying it's illegal and they could goto prison for it. They didn't actually comment on any of the emails themselves, they would just pop up a minute long story about Wikileaks and then move on to more stupid shit Trump said. They wouldn't mention Donna Brazille, or Jake Tapper actively corresponding with the Clinton camp.

 

[Lord of Lies]

Only racists think CNN isn't biased towards Democrats.

 

[west42]

Jack is like Roddy Pipers' character in "They Live."
He alone can see through the right wing bias brainwashing waves while we go about our lives thinking cnn isnt completely neutral; hell, in truth, theyre probably slanted towards the repubs. We just refuse to see the truth.

 

[IDL]

Didn't someone from CNN lose their job for giving debate questions to a presidential candidate (Clinton) in advance?

No, they lost their job because it was exposed and became public.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I didn't have a bias, as I equally disliked Trump and Hillary.

As a rule, I never believe anyone who says that they truly have no preference (you might believe it yourself), and given the massive differences in policy and evidence of personal honesty, the fact that you think they are equally bad suggests a pretty strong bias, which is itself enough to explain your position.

Anyone who watches Don Lemon, Erin Burnett, Wolf Blitzer, Brooke Baldwin, Jake Tapper, etc. can tell who they wanted.

Lemon, sure. Not Burnett, Blitzer, or Tapper, and I'm not really familiar with Baldwin. Producer positions are more important than reporter positions, though.

CNN also tried to dissuade their audience from actually looking at Clinton's emails, by saying it's illegal and they could goto prison for it.

Seriously? Wasn't that like a single clip that got played endlessly in the right-wing blogosphere rather than some kind of network-wide message?

They didn't actually comment on any of the emails themselves, they would just pop up a minute long story about Wikileaks and then move on to more stupid shit Trump said. They wouldn't mention Donna Brazille, or Jake Tapper actively corresponding with the Clinton camp.

I would guess all credible news organizations were actively corresponding with both camps. That's kind of how you cover a race.

 

[kpt018]

You guys are aware that in order for bias to exist the leaning must be unfair in some way, yes?

I don't watch CNN regularly so I can't speak to them specifically, but on Sherdog there's a thread on media bias every day. And of course some level of bias exist in everyone, but certain media outlets are much better at seeking truth and limiting their bias as much as possible.

For example, if a media outlet reported that Trump's tax plan will contribute trillions to the deficit and the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and not a hoax like Trump claims, you guys would say they're bias and attacking Trump. The reality is they're reporting facts to the best of their knowledge and that's their fucking job. In my example their criticisms are very well supported. They don't have to, and should not, give equal time to bullshit claims that are not supported by facts just to appear unbiased. Doing otherwise would be a disservice.

 

[Blackened]

No, they lost their job because it was exposed and became public.

Yeah, that's true. It was about maintaining the perception that the election was a fair contest and the perception that CNN wasn't biased.

 

[nixkid]

Wikileaks gave the evidence of bias.

Donna Brazile lost her job at CNN because her bias for Clinton was so blatant.

What kind of retarded argument is this? Of course, Donna Brazile is biased. She's a life long democrat that has worked for the DNC and on democratic presidential campaigns. She was hired by CNN to be a democratic pundit. But that doesn't mean that CNN is biased. Do you know who else CNN hired to be a pundit? Corey Lewandowski who was Trump's former campaign manager and was basically paid to shill for Trump on TV. They also have right-wing nuts like Jeffrey Lord and Scottie Nell Hughes on the payroll.

Now maybe surrogates shouldn't be paid pundits. But the existence of democratic surrogates as pundits doesn't prove bias because CNN paid Trump surrogates too.

 

[CrazyN8]

You guys are aware that in order for bias to exist the leaning must be unfair in some way, yes?

I don't watch CNN regularly so I can't speak to them specifically, but on Sherdog there's a thread on media bias every day. And of course some level of bias exist in everyone, but certain media outlets are much better at seeking truth and limiting their bias as much as possible.

For example, if a media outlet reported that Trump's tax plan will contribute trillions to the deficit and the overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is real and not a hoax like Trump claims, you guys would say they're bias and attacking Trump. The reality is they're reporting facts to the best of their knowledge and that's their fucking job. In my example their criticisms are very well supported. They don't have to, and should not, give equal time to bullshit claims that are not supported by facts just to appear unbiased. Doing otherwise would be a disservice.

Yes, I am aware of partisan bias. The, I like it when they say things I agree with, and they are biased when they say things I don't like. That's not the issue. The problem is when people are excusing legitimate media bias, including collusion against one candidate, as simple partisan bias. Jack believes that we are simply viewing things like CNN with partisan bias and there is no real bias to be seen. This thread was created to see if anyone else or how many else agree with this stance, as he is basing a lot of his posting on that principle.

 

[nixkid]

Umm...Brietbart is biased to..what exactly is your argument. If I totally admit that Brietbart and Infowars are biased..can you admit CNN is?

No. Just because Brietbart is biased in one direction doesn't automatically make anything left of them biased in the other direction.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Ah crap, I'm one of the idiots who voted "towards republicans". I meant democrats.

Its all good, you got it on the record.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, I am aware of partisan bias. The, I like it when they say things I agree with, and they are biased when they say things I don't like. That's not the issue. The problem is when people are excusing legitimate media bias, including collusion against one candidate, as simple partisan bias. Jack believes that we are simply viewing things like CNN with partisan bias and there is no real bias to be seen. This thread was created to see if anyone else or how many else agree with this stance, as he is basing a lot of his posting on that principle.

Sure, but read what the people in this thread have said before. Farmer really believes that Obama won in 2012 because of fraud (posted a long list of debunked claims) and that he was using the IRS to suppress Tea Party groups. So of course, he thinks the MSM is biased because it was complicit in that great crime by not reporting it. But he actually just has a hugely distorted view of reality. We see that kind of thing all the time. People think Clinton is a murderer, that the Clinton Foundation is some kind of criminal enterprise, etc., and they see that reported on the sites they trust but not in the real media. And that's where this narrative comes from.

 

[Hard To Tell]

No. Just because Brietbart is biased in one direction doesn't automatically make anything left of them biased in the other direction.

But CNN is biased. Even if watching it (somehow) isn't enough for you then look at the FACT we now know their employees engaged in totally unethical (possibly even illegal) activity by providing Hilary Clinton with the questions she would asked at the candidate events in advance of them happening in order to give her every advantage possible over her debate opponents by having time to prepare her answers. THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENED. What more evidence do you people need ffs?

 

[CrazyN8]

No. Just because Brietbart is biased in one direction doesn't automatically make anything left of them biased in the other direction.

If it has no correlation why was it brought up in the first place?

 

[nixkid]

But CNN is biased. Even if watching it (somehow) isn't enough for you then look at the FACT we now know their employees engaged in totally unethical (possibly even illegal) activity by providing Hilary Clinton with the questions she would asked at the candidate events in advance of them happening in order to give her every advantage possible over her debate opponents by having time to prepare her answers.

They hired her to be a pro-democratic pundit just like they hired Corey Lewandowski to be a pro-Trump pundit. This argument is ridiculous.

 

[nixkid]

If it has no correlation why was it brought up in the first place?

Because most of the people that think CNN is biased have extreme right wing views and they believe that any source that isn't constantly reaffirming their craziness is biased. That is not true. Those people are on the fringes while CNN caters specifically to the center.