The "Is CNN Biased" post, Poll edition..
- Thread starter CrazyN8
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2013
- Messages
- 2,425
- Reaction score
- 1
What a dumbass. gold medal for mental gymnastics
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hiya there CrazyN8,
what i've been saying is this;
when a major network saturates their airwaves with coverage of Mr. Trump rallies, that my friend is positive coverage. most campaigns would give their right arm for that kind of exposure - the campaign rallies were basically extended advertisements for candidate Trump, bolstered by the imprimatur of CNN.
an orgy of network sanctioned propaganda, lol.
as i've said earlier, even the president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, admitted that his network went overboard with the coverage of Mr. Trump's rallies.
in the pursuit of ratings and advertising revenue, CNN's coverage of Mr. Trump gave the appearance of bias in favor of Trump.
- IGIT
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,455
- Reaction score
- 1,533
So, in summation you are a liar. Got it.
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
heya there CrazyN8,
no, i don't think so.
i agree with the President of CNN; that the network really did go overboard on the coverage of Mr. Trump rallies, giving the appearance of a pro-Trump bias.
i guess we'll just have to disagree to disagree on this point.
- IGIT
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 81,137
- Reaction score
- 68,288
Fine, but you're gleefully ignoring all the negative coverage he got besides his rallies. On top of that, a lot of his rallies were followed up with a panel slamming the message he was giving during those rallies.
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,455
- Reaction score
- 1,533
I asked you if you meant they accidentally gave him too much coverage and got him votes, you said no thats silly, and proceeded to say you meant that exact same thing. I also just realized talking you is probably about the same as talking to an onlibe bot, and im sad for me now..good day sir.
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hi and good morning HereticBD,
if you're agreeing with me that Mr. Trump was the beneficiary of all the free promotion that he received via the coverage of his rallies from CNN - that's great. i mean, i don't think i've been making a controversial point.
as to the rest we'll have to establish then what "negative coverage" is.
*considers*
several posters have cited CNN's coverage Mr. Trump's pussy grabbing recording as proof positive that the network was skewed against him...but i'm not buying that.
the fact is, media is always going to respond to a "man bites dog" story far more than a "dog bites man" narrative - and its undeniable that Mr. Trump made some very, very exciting (or depending on your PoV, outlandish) assertions during his campaign.
they were the campaign equivalent of click-bait, so the network (and not just CNN) responded with kind of coverage one would expect. on CNN, the result were guests defending Mr. Trump's exciting statements countered by guests lambasting him.
that's not exactly bias, my friend.
- IGIT
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hi CrazyN8,
i'll try then, to be clear;
CNN did not accidentally give Mr. Trump too much coverage.
CNN's coverage of Mr. Trump was not, by design, an effort to rally support for him.
CNN's heavy coverage of Mr. Trump was an effort to topple FoxNews as the top dog in the MSM war for ratings and revenue.
a side effect of CNN's efforts, though, was that Mr. Trump's rallies (which were non-stop propaganda on behalf of Mr. Trump, just as Mrs. Clinton's rallies were non-stop propaganda for her own interests) received disproportionate airtime.
this is not some CT position i'm taking...it's been admitted to by the President of CNN.
the result was a reality where CNN's coverage ended up being biased towards Mr. Trump, in a "pro-Trump" manner.
- IGIT
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2010
- Messages
- 5,455
- Reaction score
- 1,533
Maybe we are misinterpreting each other here. When I say accidentally gave him too much coverage, I don't mean they didn't mean to cover trump, they completely meant to to bolster ratings and IMO also bash him in hopes of reducing his legitimacy as a candidate. When I say accidentally I mean they didn't intend for it to help Trump get votes but that was the side effect as you put it.
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2010
- Messages
- 81,137
- Reaction score
- 68,288
Obviously the free coverage he got was beneficial. Not intentionally so, though. It was only intended to benefit CNN with ratings. Not help Trump become President, which was basically considered an impossibility at the time.
Have you watched much CNN? With that response, I'm going to guess you haven't. If you think this notion that CNN is biased boils down to pussygate, you're sorely mistaken
It wasn't just guests arguing. Routinely on their panel shows, you would get 4 liberals, and 1, sometimes 2 republicans. The Republicans were shouted down not only by the guests, but the host themselves. The deck was routinely stacked against Trump supporters, and the host would be steering the narrative in Clinton's favor. Anyone with eyes could see this on a minute to minute basis on CNN. Any negative criticism towards Hillary Clinton was met with childish interruptions(half the time by the host), and in some instances, an outright official denouncement of the views expressed by the Republican. I can vividly remember Don Lemon stopping the show to clarify that CNN did not endorse one of the guest's opinion that Hillary Clinton committed a criminal act.
I could post literally hundreds of clips proving CNN's constant, and unrelenting bias against Trump and his supporters, and unwavering allegiance to Hillary Clinton, but something tells me you would just ignore them, and quote Jeff Zucker again. So whatever.
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hey there CrazyN8,
we're pretty much in agreement, except for the bolded.
i only watch CNN now and then, from work - though i've read their site, CNN.com, more often than i usually do during the last year. i have a day job and am not part of some media watchdog group.
i will say that i haven't seen much evidence that CNN's anchors engaged in heavy "bashing" of Mr. Trump. some of their guests sure did, but those critiques were always balanced by Trump surrogates who promoted Mr. Trump's interests.
- IGIT
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hi again HereticBD (my last post for now, i gotta head out)
this is more or less what i've been saying for pages and pages now.
yes, i've watched CNN. i don't watch it 24/7, there are other media sites i like to read (theAtlantic, Townhall, National Review, the NYT, NYmag, etc, etc)....there are, afterall, only so many hours in the day.
i also don't boil CNN's coverage down to the pussygrabbing tape of Mr. Trump. i didn't even bring it up, i just mentioned it because another poster introduced it into the dialogue.
- IGIT
this is more or less what i've been saying for pages and pages now.
yes, i've watched CNN. i don't watch it 24/7, there are other media sites i like to read (theAtlantic, Townhall, National Review, the NYT, NYmag, etc, etc)....there are, afterall, only so many hours in the day.
i also don't boil CNN's coverage down to the pussygrabbing tape of Mr. Trump. i didn't even bring it up, i just mentioned it because another poster introduced it into the dialogue.
- IGIT
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2015
- Messages
- 6,149
- Reaction score
- 1,788
Jack is either
A. A very committed and demented troll.
B. Getting paid to come out with stuff (yes, there are actually people who do this).
C. Being deliberately contrary to look all edgy, like he has some unique insight and we all just don't get it.
or
D. Insane.
A. A very committed and demented troll.
B. Getting paid to come out with stuff (yes, there are actually people who do this).
C. Being deliberately contrary to look all edgy, like he has some unique insight and we all just don't get it.
or
D. Insane.
Horsesh@t, they covered him nonstop because they were sure any minute he would say the thing that was finally gonna sink his campaign, and they were damn sure going to be the ones broadcasting it when it happened.
Oops...
IGIT
Silver Belt
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2005
- Messages
- 10,046
- Reaction score
- 941
hiya bobgeese,
i see.
i don't know how you know any of this, but whatever. we both agree that CNN gave nonstop coverage for Mr. Trump, at least.
have a great night, bob!
- IGIT
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
I've been nice to you by skimming over your posts lately, but you continually assert things that are completely false and which indicate that you have a weak understanding of evolutionary psychology, standard rational thinking and even the basic terms you use. On top of that, you try to cast broad aspersions on other posters here which seem to be fed by these failures in your own thinking.
Would you like me to give you another public lesson? In this case on how evidence functions, why the evidence presented here is perfectly valid, and why the media would be biased against the right?
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2015
- Messages
- 1,531
- Reaction score
- 1,112
Not to my understanding
"conservatives dominated the domestic policies of the Eisenhower Administration. Voters liked Ike much more than they liked the GOP, and he proved unable to shift the party to a more moderate position. After 1970, the liberal wing began to fade away."
Nicol C. Rae, The Decline and Fall of the Liberal Republicans: From 1952 to the Present (1989)
Where is your source that the management of these companies tend towards conservatism? Free Press disagrees
As for News Corp, Time Warner, Comcast, and Walt Disney Co., political contributions to Democrats were “roughly ten times the amount” of donations made to Republicans.
While not as pronounced of a difference, the Tribune Company gave almost twice as much funding to Democrats instead of Republicans. Similarly the Washington Post Co. preferred funding Democrats over Republicans.
In opposition to all this but not as dedicated as Bain Capital or the CBS Corporation, Viacom only donated more to Republicans by a very slim margin.
http://pundithouse.com/2013/01/mass-media-conservative-or-liberal/
I assume you're going to come back to the 2 quotes you omitted?
Then we have " A 2005 study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia attempted to quantify bias among news outlets using statistical models, and found a liberal bias.The authors wrote that "all of the news outlets we examined, except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times, received scores to the left of the average member of Congress."
and
Kuypers, J, of Dartmouth wrote the 2002 book Press Bias and Politics.
"Examining over 800 press reports on race and homosexuality from 116 different newspapers, Kuypers meticulously documents a liberal political bias in mainstream news. This book asserts that such a bias hurts the democratic process by ignoring non-mainstream left positions and vilifying many moderate and most right-leaning positions, leaving only a narrow brand of liberal thought supported by the mainstream press."
He concludes that only "a narrow brand of liberal thought" was supported by the press, with "all other positions shut out or shut down".
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
There we go, it took only a moment of skimming before an example of your errors came out.
Your statement is dead wrong.
The media *professes* to be centrist because it serves what they *actually* sell to people, which is the feeling of being accurately informed.
This same distinction applies when they create their stories. The journalists and news producers put out what they feel is accurate information. But without a proper understanding of these feelings, the information they choose is corrupted by them. Including, among other things, their need for self-esteem and alignment with their social group. When those things conflict with apparent facts, unless they have a very strong understanding of their own biases and a lot of mental discipline, they actually will reinterpret or ignore and massage those facts until they comply with those primary needs.
The problem you have is that you think lists of information and numbers are indications of intelligence or accuracy, instead of the actual ability to process that information accurately. And in reality, a brilliant person who only casually watches the news will come to much more accurate conclusions and predictions than a pseudo-intelligent person who floods themselves with uncommon studies and data that their brain isn't equipped to fully process.
The latter person ends up dumber than even a lot of average people, because the pile of information they haven't properly processed makes them think they know more than they do and more than other people, and thus they become innoculated against contradictory data and opinions and end up doing ridiculous things like claiming CNN isn't biased in a landslide poll backed by tons of relevant evidence and informatioin.
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 10,798
- Reaction score
- 1
Obviously he isn't going to answer so I will respond now.
"CNN" doesn't "knowingly" do anything. It's not a thinking thing. It's just a bunch of people working together under certain guidelines to try to provide a service to people.
Thus, "CNN bias" can only be a bias in their guidelines or a bias in the people themselves. Like all major media, their guidelines, as far as we know in public, claim to be objective. But we're discussing whether they are biased despite that, which means whether the people who run or work for CNN show bias beyond those guidelines.
Donna Brazile wasn't an interview guest on CNN, she was a "CNN contributor," which means she worked under the umbrella of CNN itself. Her behavior is thus to some degree representative of "CNN."
So when Donna Brazile goes OUTSIDE the guidelines of what CNN does, in this case NOT by providing a democrat's perspective but by using her information as a CNN employee to secretly aide a candidate in a way that conflicts with CNN's guidelines, her behavior is evidence that CNN is biased.
