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

[DragRacer]

I've got to give credit where credit is due.

You are an extremely committed , finely polished troll. The subsequent rustle is entertaining.

I think it's clear that you can't defend your point to even the most minimal degree, but you are nonetheless very passionately committed to it. That is a bad combination. Probably best for you to check out.

 

[HereticBD]

Heretic stalks me.

Keep the insanity coming, Jack.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

i like the biased toward republican vote

hahaha

 

[dontsnitch]

 

[ehtheist]

i like the biased toward republican vote

hahaha

To be fair, one of the people I consider to be in the running for best poster on these boards voted that option. That alone makes me curious of the reasoning behind those who did.

 

[IGIT]

i like the biased toward republican vote

hahaha

hi and happy thxgiving, BB,

i haven't voted, though i would say that the volume and nature of the coverage at CNN indicated a decided bias in favor of Mr. Trump, specifically.

i don't think it was for ideological reasons - it was just good (very, very good) for business.

the President of CNN, Mr. Zucker, has admitted as much.

- IGIT

 

[CrazyN8]

Obviously I'm taken very seriously. TS even started a thread just because he was losing an argument in another one. Heretic stalks me. Another guy (can't remember the name) has something from me in his sig. Etc. I don't really know why, but it seems to be really important to insecure right-wingers that people agree with them that the media is biased, but the evidence for that assertion is not there, and the logic behind it is equally non-existent (like, even putting aside that media studies don't back it up, *why* would anyone think that the media would be biased against the right? No one can answer that).

I started this thread because I wanted to reassure myself that the majority wasnt as crazy as you.

edit: and now its up to 142 to 7. Consider it confirmation bias as you wish, or disregard us as all nutters as you say it. But we all know who the real nut is, the joke is really on you in the end.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

hi and happy thxgiving, BB,

i haven't voted, though i would say that the volume and nature of the coverage at CNN indicated a decided bias in favor of Mr. Trump, specifically.

i don't think it was for ideological reasons - it was just good (very, very good) for business.

the President of CNN, Mr. Zucker, has admitted as much.

- IGIT

he did indeed receive a large volume of coverage but it was all negative calling him hitler, a rapist, a racist, etc. hardly fair coverage lmao

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Just read his post. He can't be serious, surely?

If he is it is mega sad and shows high level delusion and possible issues.

I wonder how long the thread will go before someone attempts to defend their position with anything but personal attacks on dissenters.

I think you need reality check man. I know foreigners who don't know shit but are smart enough to realize CNN is bias towards Democrats and liberal views. My good Indian friend on Visa realized this to.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I never thought they were against republicans prior to the election, but they were 100% anti Trump. Every single host was anti Trump. Sure they had Trump supporters on the panel, but those supporters always got creamed by the other 6 people who hated Trump. To be honest, Trump gave them plenty of ammo.

Trump gave you ratings. CNN thought they could end him at any time. They were wrong.

CNN once mentioned Trumps name 245 times in one day.

I only watched CNN in the past (fuck foxnews and MSNBC) I haven't watched them since election night. I doubt I ever will again. They are worse than foxnews/MSNBC because they want you to think they aren't biased, but they proved they are.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

Seriously though a person needs mental help if they think it isn't biased towards $hillary and Democrats or liberal talking points. Msnbc is only more bias.

 

[HereticBD]

i haven't voted, though i would say that the volume and nature of the coverage at CNN indicated a decided bias in favor of Mr. Trump, specifically.

It indicated a ratings grab.

However, if you want to dig deeper into the conspiracy theory hole, during the primaries it's documented that the DNC wanted to prop up three specific candidates they viewed as easy prey to take down in a general election. One of them was Trump.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

I don't vote in this kind of retarded thread. The truth is the truth regardless of what right-wing cheerleaders say. I'd be more impressed with a single citation to a study or well-argued point then a bunch of second-sight types clicking an option.

I'm pretty sure you have said in the past that you don't watch CNN?

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I never thought they were against republicans prior to the election, but they were 100% anti Trump. Every single host was anti Trump. Sure they had Trump supporters on the panel, but those supporters always got creamed by the other 6 people who hated Trump. To be honest, Trump gave them plenty of ammo.

Trump gave you ratings. CNN thought they could end him at any time. They were wrong.

CNN once mentioned Trumps name 245 times in one day.

I only watched CNN in the past (fuck foxnews and MSNBC) I haven't watched them since election night. I doubt I ever will again. They are worse than foxnews/MSNBC because they want you to think they aren't biased, but they proved they are.

The last 2 months and especially the month leading up to the election was insane anti Republican and anti Trump bashing.

Every time I turned CNN on it was constant Trump and Republican bashing.

 

[IGIT]

it was all negative calling him hitler, a rapist, a racist, etc. hardly fair coverage lmao

hi Benjamin Burton once more,

actually, that's not true.

as i said earlier, the president of the network himself admitted that CNN probably gave far too much coverage to Mr. Trump's rallies.

his rallies.

you're argument isn't with me. it's with the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker.

i don't know if its been mentioned, but that's the same Jeff Zucker who helped propel Mr. Trump into superstardom when he launched the Apprentice when he was at NBC.

- IGIT

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

So in another thread everyone's favorite poster @Jack V Savage is still defending the likes of CNN saying they are absolutely not biased against Donald trump and never were. Some of us disagree, what say you fellow sherdoggers?

edit: I realize I mispelled Republicans, I can't edit it now.

You should remove the "I don't watch CNN" option. Cause those people shouldn't even vote in this poll.

 

[Benjamin Burton]

hi Benjamin Burton once more,

actually, that's not true.

as i said earlier, the president of the network himself admitted that CNN probably gave far too much coverage to Mr. Trump's rallies.

his rallies.

you're not argument isn't with me. it's with the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker.

i don't know if its been mentioned, but that's the same Jeff Zucker who helped launch Mr. Trump into superstardom when he launched the Apprentice.

- IGIT

so i guess my question now would be why would i believe the word of the president of a biased "news" network?

trump also did 3 times as many rallies as clinton. if she had done more, they could have aired them instead.

 

[IGIT]

Seriously though a person needs mental help if they think it isn't biased towards $hillary and Democrats or liberal talking points. Msnbc is only more bias.

hiya SOA,

could you link me the post where you had your "come to Jesus moment", regarding Bernie?

of all the changes i've seen on this board since i was last active, your about-face on the issue of Mrs. Clinton is one of the ones i find most surprising.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

so i guess my question now would be why would i believe the word of the president of a biased "news" network?

trump also did 3 times as many rallies as clinton. if she had done more, they could have aired them instead.

hi again Benjamin,

i'm unclear what proofs you're looking for, then.

when the president of a network admits that he went overboard on giving airtime to a particular candidate (in this case, Mr. Trump), you can either take him at his word - or discard it, i guess.

numerous media analysts have come to the same conclusion.

and as far as rallies go...if you think that coverage of a rally (where one candidate is bashing their rivals) is "news"...then i suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

i'm in agreement with the bulk of the posters here. i agree that CNN's coverage gave the appearance of bias, you know? i just think that the bias favored Mr. Trump.

- IGIT

 

[HereticBD]

when the president of a network admits that he went overboard on giving airtime to a particular candidate (in this case, Mr. Trump), you can either take him at his word - or discard it, i guess.

numerous media analysts have come to the same conclusion.

That's true, but it doesn't speak to any bias in favor of Trump. Bias in favor of covering him because of the ratings he brings in, perhaps. But not bias in favoring him over his opponents in the election. They also covered "Pussy-gate" more than Wikileaks by a ridiculous margin too. Was that to help Trump as well?

If you give a guy 24/7 coverage, but are slamming him for 23 of those 24 hours, are they really trying to help the guy? They might inadvertently be helping the guy, but not because of any intentional favoritism towards him.