nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

CNN fake news network

BillyBobBS

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/jun/27/three-cnn-journalists-resign-over-retracted-trump-russia-story

So it turns out CNN is in fact a fake news network. I don't know what's more weird as in the fact they engage in this type of carry on or that Trump was right about something.

I think everyone to some degree understands that modern day news networks are used as mouth pieces for a certain agenda (RTE, Sky etc..) but i hope this opens up a proper debate on what the public expect from their news. Personally i think it's a good thing that CNN have been utterly exposed on this matter.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

robindch

ScumLord wrote: »

All news networks whether they be in print, online or TV are terrible sources for news. It's not so much because they have some hidden agenda, it's because they're capitalists that will say whatever they can get away with to make money.

That statement is wrong on many levels.

Firstly, the output from media outlets like Fox + Breitbart is designed to incite and inflame consumers such that they'll keep coming back for more. There may be a political agenda (in which case, it's propaganda), but equally well, the business model can be much simpler - more hate means more return-visits which means more ad revenue. That's how Breitbart works.

Secondly, that business model cannot and does not apply to publicly-funded services like the BBC and others.

Thirdly, it also suggests - quite wrongly - that media networks can only exist if they cater to the lowest hysterical strata. There are plenty of outlets which adhere to respectable media standards and which produce reliable, factual reporting in a calm and measured fashion.

Fourthly, it seems that many people have trouble distinguishing between reporting of fact and publishing of opinion. If people tried to bear this distinction in mind when consuming media, I suspect they'd be a little less swayed by trash/hate media outlets.

It's factually false to claim or imply that all media outlets cater for the same markets, or adhere to the same journalistic standards, or have equally unreliable output.

ScumLord

robindch wrote: »

It's factually false to claim or imply that all media outlets cater for the same markets, or adhere to the same journalistic standards, or have equally unreliable output.

I never said any of those things. I said all they care about is making money. The fact is it doesn't matter how respectable they would like to be if they're not making money they're not going to stay in business, so they're forced to use the same tactics as the companies making money. I think most media outlets have shown this to be true. If you know of a reliable news source I'd love to hear about it.

The only news sources that aren't as controlled by money are the likes of RTE and BBC. But they're so bland and middle of the road they omit facts so as not to upset people. They can often have backward management that wouldn't be able to operate in the real world and seem to spend as more time regurgitating what everyone else is saying than they do researching the actual news. They're just a different kind of useless.

silverharp

robindch wrote: »

That statement is wrong on many levels.

Firstly, the output from media outlets like Fox + Breitbart is designed to incite and inflame consumers such that they'll keep coming back for more. There may be a political agenda (in which case, it's propaganda), but equally well, the business model can be much simpler - more hate means more return-visits which means more ad revenue. That's how Breitbart works.

Secondly, that business model cannot and does not apply to publicly-funded services like the BBC and others.

Thirdly, it also suggests - quite wrongly - that media networks can only exist if they cater to the lowest hysterical strata. There are plenty of outlets which adhere to respectable media standards and which produce reliable, factual reporting in a calm and measured fashion.

Fourthly, it seems that many people have trouble distinguishing between reporting of fact and publishing of opinion. If people tried to bear this distinction in mind when consuming media, I suspect they'd be a little less swayed by trash/hate media outlets.

It's factually false to claim or imply that all media outlets cater for the same markets, or adhere to the same journalistic standards, or have equally unreliable output.

its easier just to say that Fox shills for the Republicans and CNN shills for the Democrats also and that there is no money in middle of the road cable news networks

manual_man

The only way that this pantomime show of fake news can be halted is for it to be written in to law that news sources must be verified by an independent body, otherwise things continue to go down hill and people's confidence in news media plummets even further. At present it seems like news reporting isn't held to any real high ethical standard, with increasing stories quoting "anonymous" sources which immediately begs the question is this BS or not. Surely it's time for new laws to come in to hold reporting to a higher standard than the drivel we're currently getting served in the mainstream.

Maximus Alexander

I knew before I clicked into this thread that I was going to look to the left of the OP and see "Join Date: Jun 2017"

[Deleted User]

If you watch the latest video with the CNN producers on camera admitting all of it is bùll****, and then come out with "but uh.. O'Keefe.. shill.. no context!", you're a stupider that a flat-Earther. That's not "keyboard warrior" talk, it's just what it is. You actually need to reconsider what you're doing with your life if you've gone sacrificed that much of your intelligence.

Is it fair that so many of my friends have been losing their minds for months absolutely convinced of this, that and the other about Russia, for no reason? No, of course not. They're just idiots being taken advantage of like drug dealer facilitating an addict's fall.
They even donate money to the same organisations that make them angry and feel like shít every day for no reason.

But it's their fault for believing BS they read so I just sit back and watch. It brings me some weird sense of hope that I'm dealing with serious personal problems far better than they're dealing with their FaceboQok feeds.

Who even cares. It's just a sport.

20Cent

manual_man wrote: »

The only way that this pantomime show of fake news can be halted is for it to be written in to law that news sources must be verified by an independent body, otherwise things continue to go down hill and people's confidence in news media plummets even further. At present it seems like news reporting isn't held to any real high ethical standard, with increasing stories quoting "anonymous" sources which immediately begs the question is this BS or not. Surely it's time for new laws to come in to hold reporting to a higher standard than the drivel we're currently getting served in the mainstream.

Doubt thats feasible the most important stories come from sources which can't be named for various reasons. People need to get more fussy about the media they consume and go for quality rather than click bait type hysteria.

conorhal

ScumLord wrote: »

He gives a fair assessment of current media and what caused it. I've noticed what he talks about on youtube a good bit, where young people are obviously talking about stuff they only have third hand knowledge of and I suspect are just watching other people's youtube videos then making their own based on that video.

The goal of media is to generate the most clicks these days. Pool did another video talking about google and Youtube algorithims that show how the big platforms ar further compounding the issue.
If you watch a Youtube video you will have noticed that the side bar with reccomended content tends to offer you more of the same content. If you click on a cat video, chances are there will be a whole host of other ones for your selection.
This is down to the platform's algorithims, they see what you are watching and serve you more of what you seem to like watching. In that way they can ensure viewers are retained on the platform for as long as possible and thus exposed to their advertisers for as long as possible, because more of what you want equals a higher click through rate.

Now that's fine when it comes to cat videos, but downright dangerous when it comes to news and political commentators. You have very polarised commentators and algorithims that encourage that by only filtering viewers into one silo or the other and only feeding them the same content from one ideological viewpoint.

conorhal

20Cent wrote: »

Can't stand that guy. A camera and a beany hat and he thinks he's a journalist. Amateurs like him are part of the problem. Give me an established news source with a history and reputation anyday.

As you have posted quite often defending Antifa's antics and Tim Pool has often shown them up for the loony, rediculous thugs they are, I don't doubt you can't stand him.

ScumLord

conorhal wrote: »

Now that's fine when it comes to cat videos, but downright dangerous when it comes to news and political commentators. You have very polarised commentators and algorithims that encourage that by only filtering viewers into one silo or the other and only feeding them the same content from one ideological viewpoint.

I've noticed that the odd time I watch some conspiracy theory videos that I get loads of them thrown at me. I've thought youtube seems very one sided when it comes to these things. It doesn't seem as eager to throw more respectable and balanced opinions at me.

I mostly watch factual historical stuff on youtube, but I watch one conspiracy video and suddenly I'm inundated with conspiracy videos. Maybe it's just there's more of that kind of stuff on youtube than there is quality factual content, but I could easily see how you could get sucked down a rabbit hole on youtube.

They could seriously do with updating their algorithms.

super_furry

I do love all these brand new accounts that sign up just to spout off nonsense like this. Fake news? Fake accounts.

20Cent

conorhal wrote: »

As you have posted quite often defending Antifa's antics and Tim Pool has often shown them up for the loony, rediculous thugs they are, I don't doubt you can't stand him.

He's friends with and has been paid by the alt right 4chan weirdos so wouldn't hold much stock in his impartiality.

20Cent

Trumps latest attack on the media apparently the Washington post is fake news and doesn't pay "internet tax".

BillyBobBS

super_furry wrote: »

I do love all these brand new accounts that sign up just to spout off nonsense like this. Fake news? Fake accounts.

Of course, because if you have just signed up your opinion isn't valid right :rolleyes:

Anywho CNN caught out yet again with their pants down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs

Shoes and Boots

Same like dogs grow in kennel,same some USA politics and journalists was grow in "kennel".All them world is kennel,world outside is enemy and barking,they does not understand that world is changed,people changed,those politics and journalists still live in kennel made in 1950-1960.You could make new kennel for them,but they still will sleep in old kennel.Same CNN,same BBC,same other .It is them life style,religion,shoes,hair cut,etc.

20Cent

BillyBobBS wrote: »

Of course, because if you have just signed up your opinion isn't valid right :rolleyes:

Anywho CNN caught out yet again with their pants down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2G360HrSAs

James O Keefe the maker of these videos has a long history of dishonesty and ironically fake news.
Seeing two seconds of a video and drawing conclusions from it is another problem.

Shoes and Boots

conorhal wrote: »

The goal of media is to generate the most clicks these days.

Golden words !

prinzeugen

ScumLord wrote: »

I've noticed that the odd time I watch some conspiracy theory videos that I get loads of them thrown at me. I've thought youtube seems very one sided when it comes to these things. It doesn't seem as eager to throw more respectable and balanced opinions at me.

I mostly watch factual historical stuff on youtube, but I watch one conspiracy video and suddenly I'm inundated with conspiracy videos. Maybe it's just there's more of that kind of stuff on youtube than there is quality factual content, but I could easily see how you could get sucked down a rabbit hole on youtube.

They could seriously do with updating their algorithms.

Exactly. Within 30 mins of the Grenfell fire YouTube was full of "false flag" and "it was staged/fake" news videos.

More than one is also interviewed on RT via Skype as so called "experts"!!!

Same with the attack in Manchester.

The tin foil hat brigade videos get pushed more than factual stuff as does the click bait "top ten plane/ship etc crashes" that the click whores copy and share.

Shoes and Boots

prinzeugen wrote: »

Exactly. Within 30 mins of the Grenfell fire YouTube was full of "false flag" and "it was staged/fake" news videos.

Same with the attack in Manchester.

The tin foil hat brigade videos get pushed more than factual stuff as does the click bait "top ten plane/ship etc crashes" that the click whores copy and share.

They all Putin agents ! Trolls ! Russia hybrid war ! Russian hackers attack CNN servers ! If you are on toilet closet,make sure,Putin eye does not look to your "third eye" from bottom of the closet ! Making tea make sure there is no Putin ear in tea bag !

Hank Scorpio

All part of the system

Samaris

CNN is not the most reliable network out there, but they acted rightly in how they dealt with that last news story. It was retracted, there was an investigation into it and three journalists were let go, because that is how important integrity in the media is being seen nowadays, at least by a portion of it, generally the "MSM" (Fox as a notable exception to the big five).

Yeah, CNN have a bit of a history to make up for, although they were never the worst of the lot (second worst, probably), but that was a good reaction. It's a shame it has to give Trump a reason to gloat, but screw him, it is more important for the media to report accurately. The media will be there in some form or another (and I'm a bit more optimistic now about what form) long after Trump is just "hey, do you remember that total lunatic we elected in 2016?"

Hank Scorpio

Samaris wrote: »

CNN is not the most reliable network out there, but they acted rightly in how they dealt with that last news story. It was retracted, there was an investigation into it and three journalists were let go, because that is how important integrity in the media is being seen nowadays, at least by a portion of it, generally the "MSM" (Fox as a notable exception to the big five).

Yeah, CNN have a bit of a history to make up for, although they were never the worst of the lot (second worst, probably), but that was a good reaction. It's a shame it has to give Trump a reason to gloat, but screw him, it is more important for the media to report accurately. The media will be there in some form or another (and I'm a bit more optimistic now about what form) long after Trump is just "hey, do you remember that total lunatic we elected in 2016?"

They've been pushing false narratives for 2 years, it's not just this one story.

⁹

20Cent

Hilarious that the same people who watch fox news and infowars are complaining about cnn.

BillyBobBS

20Cent wrote: »

Hilarious that the same people who watch fox news and infowars are complaining about cnn.

The thread is about CNN. I don't watch Fox News or infowars but you are free to start a thread on those outlets if you like.

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

Hilarious that the same people who watch fox news and infowars are complaining about cnn.

I'd imagine most people know Fox is partisan , as for infowars , they are a bit special, however the illusion was that outfits like CNN were the "good guys" when all they were doing was playing their audience for clicks and eyeballs. Its all infotainment

20Cent

silverharp wrote: »

I'd imagine most people know Fox is partisan , as for infowars , they are a bit special, however the illusion was that outfits like CNN were the "good guys" when all they were doing was playing their audience for clicks and eyeballs. Its all infotainment

Fox is fair and balanced, thats their slogan. Three CNN journalists resigned over not following the correct procedure publishing a story.

silverharp

20Cent wrote: »

Fox is fair and balanced, thats their slogan. Three CNN journalists resigned over not following the correct procedure publishing a story.

CNN have been living the last year off their muh Russia "nothingbuger" and have been publicly found out, they would pretty much need to fire everyone from their CEO down, not clear out a couple of patsies

BillyBobBS

CNN, home of the nothing burger

20Cent

For:
The US intelligence agencies report with a high confidence that Russian government interfered with US election. Trump himself has said Russian colluded in the election.

Against:
A 2 second out of context video clip by a known fraudster.

But the for is fake news.

Let that sink in.

BillyBobBS

20Cent wrote: »

For:
The US intelligence agencies report with a high confidence that Russian government interfered with US election. Trump himself has said Russian colluded in the election.

Against:
A 2 second out of context video clip by a known fraudster.

But the for is fake news.

Let that sink in.

It's sunk in.

"US intelligence agencies" :pac: Ok then it must be true