| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CNN article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
 | This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
.svg){kind=small}
 | Media Unassessed | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
- talk page /archive
Fox News References
Guys, I'm going to remove all of the Fox News references. I know that there is someone here that is obviously a bit fanatical about this. And that's fine. We all have things we feel strongly about. I can respect that. But this is a page about CNN. It really doesn't seem that all of the Fox stuff has a valid reason for being here. I only ask that before anybody goes and reverts these changes, that they please read the sections through and keep in mind that, despite their own personal opinions, this is a page about CNN. It's not a competition. While CNN may at times certainly not be neutral, there is no reason this wiki page can't be a neutral article. ~~Daydreamer302000, January 2007 (UTC)
- I've removed another irrelevant Fox News reference. If someone can give a good reason for putting in such references on CNN's wikipage, please explain that here. Keep in mind that this is NOT a competition. If you are a big Fox News fan, and have reasonable complaints about CNN, well... ok. But that is not a reason to keep putting Fox New's references on CNN's page. This is supposed to be a neutral article, not a competition. In no way does the lack of references to other News networks (there are hundreds with massive audiences all over the world) imply their relative importance or lack thereof. I'd ask that you please put the information about these other networks on their respective pages. --Daydreamer302000 15:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
BBC Impartiality
"The BBC, known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting, differs from CNN International which uses local reporters in many of its news-gathering centers ..."
I'd say quite a few people would dispute that the BBC is "known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting," and this aside has no bearing on the rest of the article, or even the rest of the sentence.
Jwtkac 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever listened to the BBC World Service? I hate these people who has the BBC has any type of agenda. IT IS AN IMPARTIAL SERVICE.Anybody who has read the BBC Charter relises that that the government stipulates that BBC Reporting should be fair an unbyast. Similarly, the lie scale of production beats CNN too. The BBC has around 350 Correspondents around the world in total, and we haven't even got to their service in the UK yet. I believe the Americans need to watch the BBC more to realist that America's tainted view of the world.
- Good Grief. We are biased, admit the stars of BBC News.[1] Haakondahl 05:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Jeff Greenfield
Who destroyed Jeff Greenfield's page??? How can it be restored? --DanyaRomulus 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- It was deleted for copyright violations [2]; apparently it was largely a cut-and-paste job from his bio on the CNN web site. It will have to be recreated from scratch. --Aaron 01:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
--CNN Former Staff edit --
the page should be updated to include:
CNN original anchors Bob Cain (anchored from 1980-2001) now retired in Las Vegas, Bill Zimmerman, now living on Long Island, N.Y., and Don Miller (unknown). Also missing is Andrea Arceneaux who anchored in the late 1990s. Template:User Str8man87 Dave Browde, now at CBS News, who was a CNN original staff member - the correspondent assigned (simultaneously) to the Pentagon and the Supreme Court; Mark Walton, the original White House Correspondent; Bob Berkowitz, now a talk show host, another original staff correspondent, who also covered the White House and Capitol Hill; Scott Barrett, (now unknown) - the correspondent made famous in the Tapes of Wrath asking about the network catering services at the stakeout outside GW University Hospital, after the assassination attempt on then President Reagan; Kirsten Lindquist, (unknown) - an original DC based anchor.
CNN
In one part of Wikipedia's article about the cable/satellite news channel CNN, there is a section about a former CNN program, "Crossfire," which names at least some of the people who have hosted that program. But, I did not see the names of John McLaughlin or Michael Kinsley included in that part of the CNN article. I believe that, within the early history of Crossfire, John McLaughlin very briefly was either a regular host (with Tom Braden) or an occassional fill-in for Pat Buchanan.(Later in the '80's, McLaughlin's PBS program, "McLaughlin Group, premiered). Also, I believe that, eventually, Michael Kinsley became a regular host "on the left" for Crossfire for a period of time. 70.143.53.39 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)DN, Dec. 23, 2006
If Fox then CNN...
Hello,
This is my first submission so please let me know if I'm not doing this correctly:
I believe that in order to be fair and impartial, if you are to include the following statement under the Fox News description "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting" I think it would be fair and just to include a similar statement on the CNN description that would state that "CNN is seen by some critics and observers as advocating liberal political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting".
Please let me know if you agree!
All the best,
Marcello 15.243.169.70 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Fair in terms of drawing business. But is it true? Well, yes, it is. And to be fair to the neo-Nazis, some critics also deny the holocaust. The difference is that Fox News has a thin veil of probable deniability while CNN has, well, it has a thicker veil at least. Fair yes, Just no. (mmmmmm, veil) Phil 64.238.49.65 17:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Fox Reference
This article should not state the Fox News Channel as Right-Wing in fact, but in allegation.
"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other right-wing media outlets..."
to
"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other alleged right-wing media outlets..."
As the discussion states in the Article policies, a neutral point of view is important.
- I agree, it's heavily POV. --IvanKnight69 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
You cannot describe CNN as being solely criticized for 'liberal bias'.
When the article at CNN controversies and allegations of bias lists so many criticisms of CNN as being "too lenient on the Bush administration" and pro-war in nature. Italiavivi 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- That article has one very short section alleging being "too lenient on the Bush administration" - which is sourced to articles making that complaint of ALL US news stations - CNN, NBC, Fox and others. The bulk of the article, however, is allegations of bias against the Bush and Republican administrations, specific to CNN. Please see WP:NPOV#Undue Weight Isarig 16:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not realize that referring to Barack Obama as "Osama" was an allegation of liberal bias. I did not realize that being banned from Iran by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was an allegation of liberal bias. Glenn Beck controversies clearly indicate liberal bias. You, Isarig, are the one attempting to give undue weight to a portion of CNN's controversies. Italiavivi 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- yes, there are some criticisms on that page alleging non-liberal bias. Similarly, the Fox News_Channel controversies#Other_criticisms article contains some allegations that are not of Conservative bias - e.g- A Kerry-related journalist covering the Kerry campaign. The bulk of the CNN criticism article, however, is allegations of liberal bias. Feel free to do a word count. Isarig 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are not "some" criticisms; those criticisms (generally from liberals) comprise the majority. Word counts are irrelevant, count the issues one-by-one, section-by-section. Your edit-warring (switching the order without mentioning it in your edit summary) has become quite disingenuous, Isarig. Italiavivi 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POT before making any further personal attacks along the lines of accusing me of being disingenuous. The very WP article you are referencing lists conservative criticisms first. Isarig 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:UNDUE, there is more criticism listed from liberals than from conservatives. Italiavivi 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am familiar with WP:UNDUE, but it seems you are not. There is so much criticism of CNN from conservatives, that it can't possibly be considered "undue weight". I am referring you to the very article you are referencing to support your claims - that article itself says "CNN has come under criticism by conservatives claiming that CNN has liberal bias. Critics, such as Accuracy in Media and MRC, have claimed that CNN's reporting contains liberal editorializing within news stories, and have jokingly referred to CNN as the "Clinton News Network," the "Communist News Network," "Chicken Noodle News," or "Clearly Not Neutral".[2] [3]
- Please read WP:UNDUE, there is more criticism listed from liberals than from conservatives. Italiavivi 23:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:POT before making any further personal attacks along the lines of accusing me of being disingenuous. The very WP article you are referencing lists conservative criticisms first. Isarig 23:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are not "some" criticisms; those criticisms (generally from liberals) comprise the majority. Word counts are irrelevant, count the issues one-by-one, section-by-section. Your edit-warring (switching the order without mentioning it in your edit summary) has become quite disingenuous, Isarig. Italiavivi 23:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- yes, there are some criticisms on that page alleging non-liberal bias. Similarly, the Fox News_Channel controversies#Other_criticisms article contains some allegations that are not of Conservative bias - e.g- A Kerry-related journalist covering the Kerry campaign. The bulk of the CNN criticism article, however, is allegations of liberal bias. Feel free to do a word count. Isarig 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I did not realize that referring to Barack Obama as "Osama" was an allegation of liberal bias. I did not realize that being banned from Iran by Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was an allegation of liberal bias. Glenn Beck controversies clearly indicate liberal bias. You, Isarig, are the one attempting to give undue weight to a portion of CNN's controversies. Italiavivi 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Some liberal observers have claimed that CNN has a conservative bias. For example, media watchdog Media Matters for America has documented several hundred separate instances of what it sees as conservative editorializing during CNN broadcasts [4]." - conservative criticism first. Isarig 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ordering of the controversy article in no way changes that the majority of its criticisms come from liberals, not conservatives. Yours is a shockingly flimsy argument, Isarig. Italiavivi 23:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the ordering does not matter, then perhaps you should stop edit warring over the order. Isarig 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- CNN controversies contains more criticisms from liberals than from conservatives, regardless of the article's ordering. I don't see you denying this. Italiavivi 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- The ordering on this page does not change the amount of criticisms - so why are you edit warring over it? Isarig 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who changed the ordering without mentioning it in an edit summary; edit warrior, heal yourself. There are more criticisms of CNN from liberals, thus liberal criticism gets mentioned first, and you don't change the ordering via your disingenuous revert warring. It's not hard to understand. Italiavivi 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think WP editors are dumb, and don't know how to check edit histories, or do you suffer from short term memory loss? Do you need to be reminded who changed the order that had been in the article for months? Isarig 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- It's not that WP editors are dumb, it's that one WP editor in particular (yourself) is prone to distortion. There is no order there in your past version -- it only mentions conservatives' criticisms. A blatant case of undue weight which was corrected. Italiavivi 01:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- Do you think WP editors are dumb, and don't know how to check edit histories, or do you suffer from short term memory loss? Do you need to be reminded who changed the order that had been in the article for months? Isarig 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- You were the one who changed the ordering without mentioning it in an edit summary; edit warrior, heal yourself. There are more criticisms of CNN from liberals, thus liberal criticism gets mentioned first, and you don't change the ordering via your disingenuous revert warring. It's not hard to understand. Italiavivi 00:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- The ordering on this page does not change the amount of criticisms - so why are you edit warring over it? Isarig 00:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- CNN controversies contains more criticisms from liberals than from conservatives, regardless of the article's ordering. I don't see you denying this. Italiavivi 23:51, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
- If the ordering does not matter, then perhaps you should stop edit warring over the order. Isarig 23:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
CIA
Imagine if the US didn't have CNN the CIA wouldn't have anywere to get there intelligence from. Thats why they were late for World War 2 CNN wasn't around to tell them it had started.
- Uh, okay, I haven't found guidance on whether and how to combat frivolous comments such as this. First, is there anybody who does not feel that this is a specious, frivolous comment? Haakondahl 05:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Propaganda
Imagine where the Iraqi insurgents and other extremists would be if they didn't have CNN tho show their propaganda, for example, when they showed video of a US soldier being shot by a sniper, or when they showed US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.100.178 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Imagine if the CNN showed the US soldiers shooting people all you'd see is a load of Dead British soldiers. for those in southern US the British are on your side it was a friendly fire observation.
- I'd rather like to see the images that CNN doesn't show. Like U.S. soldiers beating an raping civilians or British troops beating children.
-G
Slogan
Their slogan is: "The Most Trusted Name In News". Can anyone proof that?
I mean where are the facts about it, where is it written?
--Slimjim1984 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany
- I'm not sure what to prove about it. It's their slogan; we're not claiming anything as to the truth about it. Splintercellguy 22:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Awards
Shouldn't there be a section outlining the journalism awards (Peabodys, Emmys, Murrow etc.) that CNN and its team has won? I'll start it, but does anyone have any thoughts? 64.242.28.5 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article links to the wrong one. --Jonboy 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Former personalities
Why don't you add Martin Soong to the said section? He is now back with CNBC Asia. Valerie Morris can also be added as she is now be hosting a new financial literacy programme. --Pinoysurfer 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Gulf War
"some of the most nail-biting, suspenseful reports in television news history" sounds awfully like POV to me. Will anyone object if I remove it...or has a suggestion for removing the POV? Guinness 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)