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

[Hard To Tell]

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.

But was Trump, or any other candidate, being secretly supplied with advantageous information by CNN employees? No they weren't. Why can't you just admit that CNN have jumped the shark on this?

 

[kpt018]

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.

Again I can't speak to CNN specifically but in general these threads suck. Maybe you have a legit beef, IDK, but the responses in here are what triggered my response. It's obvious people don't understand the real meaning of "bias".

 

[Gunny]

TS, I think your poll is missing the best option for some of our forum members...

* Everything that aligns with my views, by definition, is not biased because I'm right and you're too stupid to understand how smart I am. I mean, you don't even support your arguments with copied and pasted charts and quotes provided by partisan think tanks so that their readers can seem more informed in online political arguments. My side may have lost this election but it's not our fault that dumb white racists in the Midwest can't understand that we know what's best for them.

 

[nixkid]

But was Trump, or any other candidate, being secretly supplied with advantageous information by CNN employees? No they weren't. Why can't you just admit that CNN have jumped the shark on this?

Do you have proof that CNN was actively involved in what Brazile did? Did they intentionally supply her with questions in order for her to feed them to the campaign? How far up the chain did it go?

 

[CrazyN8]

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.

Because confirmation bias exists does not absolve CNN from accusations of being bias. Of the 58 people who voted that they believe CNN is baised towards Democratics, all ov them are extremely right wing? Is that your position?

 

[nixkid]

Because confirmation bias exists does not absolve CNN from accusations of being bias. Of the 58 people who voted that they believe CNN is baised towards Democratics, all ov them are extremely right wing? Is that your position?

You haven't made any accusations that can be substantiated.

Do you read this forum regularly.? Yes, people on this forum tend to be way right of center. A poll of 58 wing nuts on the internet isn't proof of anything...thats classic selection bias.

 

[Hard To Tell]

I'm now certain that Jeff Zucker himself could assassinate Trump, CNN then start running a news special calling him a hero and celebrating the killing and people would still say CNN has no bias, that it's all just a conspiracy by 'right-wingers'.

How are people this brainwashed? It's actually pretty scary.

 

[nixkid]

I'm now certain that Jeff Zucker himself could assassinate Trump, CNN then start running a news special calling him a hero and celebrating the killing and people would still say CNN has no bias, that it's all just a conspiracy by 'right-wingers'.

How are people this brainwashed? It's actually pretty scary.

So basically you have no proof. Why didn't you just say that?

 

[CrazyN8]

You haven't made any accusations that can be substantiated.

Do you read this forum regularly.? Yes, people on this forum tend to be way right of center. A poll of 58 wing nuts on the internet isn't proof of anything...thats classic selection bias.

What accusation? I was asking the opinion of the people, you don't like their opinions so they must be right wing idiots. That's your stance, as you just confirmed.

 

[THE BOSS]

Ok, someone other than Jack voted "Biased towards Republicans." Fess up, who are you...defend your position.

They must have misread the poll as "biased against" instead of "biased towards". That's the only logical answer.

 

[nixkid]

What accusation? I was asking the opinion of the people, you don't like their opinions so they must be right wing idiots. That's your stance, as you just confirmed.

No, my stance is that the people accusing CNN of bias against Trump but have no proof are wing nuts who believe that any source that does not conform to their fringe, way right of center beliefs is biased.

 

[CrazyN8]

No, my stance is that the people accusing CNN of bias against Trump but have no proof are wing nuts who believe that any source that does not conform to their fringe, way right of center beliefs is biased.

Do you good sir have concrete proof that these people are wingnuts? Or is that your opinion?

 

[nixkid]

Do you good sir have concrete proof that these people are wingnuts? Or is that your opinion?

Yes, that is my opinion. Its based on years of reading this forum.

 

[EGarrett]

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.

People aren't complaining about Brazile saying good things about democrats on the air, they're complaining about her secretly and unethically colluding with the democratic candidate's campaign using information she gained as a CNN employee.

The citation of this as evidence of CNN bias is perfectly valid, you simply failed to grasp what is a painfully obvious point.

 

[dontsnitch]

Yes, that is my opinion. Its based on years of reading CNN.

Get it?

 

[theBLADE1]

This is what everyone needs to understand and what mindless zombies like hack v suckass never will.

Mainstream media outlets have ZERO obligation to you. Their only obligation is to their ratings and their financiers. THAT'S IT. It has never been anything more then corporate backed propaganda.

So if there are more right wing people and organizations funding a news outlet such as Fox News then their reporting's will reflect that.The same thing goes for MSNBC or CNN or what ever pick your poison.

They have also realized that important stories aren't necessarily going to give them the type of ratings they desire. That's why CNN will cut away from something very important to cover BREAKING news of Justin Bieber's court case or some useless bullshit. They are ALL guilty of this to varying degrees. Also we need to dispel the notion that there was ever any reporting in any field that was unbiased. Everyone and everything has a certain level of bias but it just depends on how open they are with those biases.

That's why it's so important now more than ever to get your news from alternative sources. Make sure those sources are funded by people no matter what your political slant is.

If you still get your news from CNN or any other bullshit media outlet on television today, then shame on you for willingly leaving your head in the sand.

 

[Jack V Savage]

People aren't complaining about Brazile saying good things about democrats on the air, they're complaining about her secretly and unethically colluding with the democratic candidate's campaign using information she gained as a CNN employee.

The citation of this as evidence of CNN bias is perfectly valid, you simply failed to grasp what is a painfully obvious point.

Obviously pro-Democratic and pro-Republican pundits hired by CNN are pro-Democratic or pro-Republican. That's different from the issue of institutional bias.

 

[EGarrett]

Obviously pro-Democratic and pro-Republican pundits hired by CNN are pro-Democratic or pro-Republican. That's different from the issue of institutional bias.

Now actually read the post you quoted, where I explained why that's an invalid argument.

 

[nixkid]

People aren't complaining about Brazile saying good things about democrats on the air, they're complaining about her secretly and unethically colluding with the democratic candidate's campaign using information she gained as a CNN employee.

The citation of this as evidence of CNN bias is perfectly valid, you simply failed to grasp what is a painfully obvious point.

How does that prove that CNN is biased?

It proves that Brazile is biased BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT. Unless you have proof that CNN knowingly and willingly aided Brazile in her efforts to help the Clinton campaign then you have no argument.

 

[nixkid]

Get it?

No.

The people who have voted for CNN being biased appear to have voted based on either their personal feelings or based on some Donna Brazile conspiracy with no evidence. That is factual based on lack of evidence or even a good, solid argument in this thread.

My opinion is that these people should be called wing nuts. Others might disagree with that labeling which is why it is opinion. See the difference between fact and opinion?