Talk:CNN

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

An event mentioned in this article is a June 1 selected anniversary

talk page /archive

Private Networks

The article states "Since CNN's launch on June 1, 1980, the network has expanded its reach to a number of cable and satellite television networksto only have one listed if there really are only two. I can't seem to find the other one, though. This page lists some of Turner Private Networks' holdings, but it's unclear which might belong to CNN, and the list is old (2001). Any one have any ideas? 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

x over Cheney's face

the section about the black X placed over Cheney's face needs to be updated as the operator has conceded that the x was put over his face as "free speech". RonMexico 12:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Source? If so, find a source, cite it, and add it. Otherwise - I only read of the equipment glitch. JG of Borg 19:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashcf.htm. it's drudge so, come to think about it, i'm not sure if that's solid enough to make an edit on wikipedia for. i need to read wiki policy. if someone can verify it 100%, than i think it should be on. (backtracking a little i know)66.28.14.123 20:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit: confirmed in the newspaper this morning, i added it.66.28.14.123 20:15, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the 'cite it' part. To me, it sounds like the quote was a joke, but I'm certainly prepared to look at your source. Eliot 21:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here's another link: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/nypost/933547081.html?did=933547081&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+29%2C+2005&author=DEBORAH+ORIN+Bureau+Chief&pub=New+York+Post&desc=CNN+LOWERS+AX+IN+NEW+%27X%27+FLAP ....and there's numerous other sources. google is your friend. live it, learn it, love it.

Great, although I don't see why you'd use a source with only one-and-a-half sentences rather than one of the 'numerous other' ones. So the person who said CNN was exercising 'free speech' was a phone jockey, and not someone in the studio. And they were fired, for one of two reasons: 1) for giving false information to callers; 2) for revealing CNN's conspiracy to put a black X on the screen for one second. The simplest possible explanation, yada yada yada. Eliot 22:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

edit my edit. apparently it is important that the "technical glitch" not be mentioned as a controversy. i am new to wiki and don't want to step on any toes. i respectfully withdraw my edit. 66.28.14.123 23:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia self-referencial

CNN anchor Kyra Phillips ran a piece about the legitimacy of Wikipedia on December 5, 2005, and a poll was placed on the CNN mainpage asking their readers: "Do you trust the anonymously authored online encyclopedia Wikipedia?"

This was added recently and I just wikified it, but I'm thinking it should be removed as self-referencial. Although a link to the quickpoll could be put in External links. Thoughts? - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. I've removed it. Coffee 17:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Eliot 18:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was important to have this recorded. Its not that the incident in and of itslef was a groundbreaking event, but speaks as part of a larger picture. The undertones several CNN anchors have expressed negative opinions of various forms of online media, on one occasion even calling for regulation on blogs. I think the big picture is yet to be seen when it comes to censorship on the internet and the mainstream media is one of the players and part of the story. It would seem to me CNN's side of the fence is worthy of mention. -eventhelosers

Bias

This section needs to be beefed up. The FNC section is pretty huge, and CNN certain has more detractors and more incidents than the half-dozen that are listed. -- Jbamb 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the bias section...Almost nothing is sourced, and all but one of the points even suggest media bias. How does wanting to have access to North Korea constitute media bias? Amibidhrohi 16:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's kinda weak, but giving gifts implies a personal relationship and could be construed to create a lack of objectivity. It's a weak criticism and I don't necessarily buy it, but I can see why people level it. What would be much better was when Eason Jordan admitted to burying the "dirty laundry" of events in Iraq as far as their news coverage went. Eason Jordan is a colorful figure, there should be a lot better than giving love gifts to Kim Jong-Il. -- Jbamb 01:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule Wikipedia does not permit 'original research'. The encyclopedia could point to others who argued one point or another, but we cannot add opinion or derive conclusions ourselves. The criticism is, as you admit, weak...But it's because the criticism isn't cited that this cannot be allowed in the entry. The section has to be structured correctly. Amibidhrohi 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the three allegations have direct links to cites, and all three incidents are common knowledge that were reported on extensively at the times they occurred. The fact that you personally may not have heard about any of them does not change that fact, nor does it mean that their inclusion in the article constitutes "original research." Also, if you have a problem with the section, edit it to make it better. You are repeatedly going in and summarily deleting the entire section. Aaron 17:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that goes against the political grain of the cabal is original research. Didn't you get the memo? ;) -- Jbamb 17:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN has come under criticism by conservatives claiming that CNN has liberal bias. Critics 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," or "Clearly Not Neutral". Conservatives point to the following as evidence of the bias:

What is the basis of this claim? Name some conservative commentators who present the case that CNN editorializes.

On August 16, 1997, Chief News Executive Eason Jordan gave a gift to North Korean leader Kim Jong-il in an attempt to improve CNN's access to North Korean affairs. [4] (Jordan had been credited in 1996 with gaining exclusive access to North Korea for CNN reporters.)

How does seeking greater access into N Korea constitute "liberal bias"? Since when has it been part of any liberal agenda to support the cause of the North Korean government?

In 1998, CNN, in partnership with corporate sister Time magazine, ran a report that Operation Tailwind in 1970 in Indochina included use of Sarin gas to kill a group of defectors from the United States military. The Pentagon denied the story. Skeptics deemed it improbable that such an extraordinary and risky atrocity could have gone unnoticed at the height of the Vietnam War's unpopularity. CNN, after a two-week inquiry, issued a retraction. [5]. The story's producers, April Oliver and Jack Smith, were summarily sacked.

The 'producers' were fired for their shoddy work on this report. This doesn't suggest bias at all.

In 2000, Lou Dobbs left CNN, reportedly due to heated clashes with then-president Rick Kaplan, who was frequently accused by conservatives of manipulating news programs to present a liberal slant. Dobbs returned the following year at the behest of CNN founder Ted Turner.

No sources cited. No way to tell if this allegation itself is biased.

Amibidhrohi 15:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then put the {{fact}} tag there to ask for citations. -- Jbamb 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best of the points is the one that is not cited. How do I keep that there while deleting everything else. Aaron, if these events are such common knowlege, it should be no problem for you to document them properly. The 'cite' on the North Korea arguement doesn't suggest any motive of any kind on CNN's part, just acknowleges that a CNN official gave the NK a gift. Without a source that actually makes the allegation that CNN was pandering to the NK government, the rest of the paragraph is pure conjecture. This section is beyond POV, it's libel. It's not presentable. Amibidhrohi 15:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bit on the mine disaster isn't a controversy, at least not that I know of. One critic who posts something in a blog doesn't justify that bit of information being on this article. The points I made before still stand, the North Korea thing does NOT imply a bias and doesn't qualify as a controversy, nor does the publishing error of the 'atrocity'...Amibidhrohi 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RONMEXICO, until you correct the criticisms such that they satisfy the problems mentioned above, do not revert the section to their former inaccurate state. Also, do not remove the information I added unless you can state a reason for removing them. Amibidhrohi 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The revert war going on with the controversies and bias section justifies this tag. Inaccurate information and personal editorializing is being kept in for no other reason than to argue that CNN is part of that mythical 'liberal bias' that the likes of Bill O'Reilly whines about. At the same time, verifiable and cited information dealing with CNN's failure to perform its duties prior to the Iraq war (all this is confessed openly by Turner and other top executive officials, including reporters) have been removed without any discussion whatsoever. Amibidhrohi 15:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll refer to this quote by jbamb, "This section needs to be beefed up. The FNC section is pretty huge, and CNN certain has more detractors and more incidents than the half-dozen that are listed." everyone keeps having to revert Amib's vandalism on this page and the foxnews page. in amib's world, cnn does not warrant a controversies page at all whereas controversies should consume the entire FNC page. i think most fair-minded people would agree that both CNN and FNC deserve a concise and fair controversies section, amib seems to be the only one that disagrees with this. Amib's complaint was that the controversies on this page were not sourced, after they got sourced he still deleted them. i'm calling into question amib's neutrality based on his comments on this page and especially his comments on the FNC page. RonMexico 16:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's disingenuous. You DELETED information I added regarding CNN's failure to cover and question the Bush administration's pre-war intelligence. How's that for beefing up?

Fox News isn't CNN and CNN isn't Fox News. There's no rationale that justifies your stance that the two have to have "Controversy" sections of the same size. I didn't author the Fox News entry, but whoever did stated in the "History" section there that Murdoch started the channel with the explixit intent to correct for what he thought was a liberal-biased media. When Turner created CNN, his motivation was to create a 24-hour news channel. The two media outlets have entirely different functions and agendas. CNN doesn't release memos dictating the tilt of the day, Fox News does.

As for deleting the section, the only reason why I did that is because the information you put up are not verified by sources, and sites that are cited do NOT imply the information you actually add into the entry. I've stated this all in this discussion page in the sections above, but you've stopped even discussing it. No source exists that ever argued that a CNN official's giving gifts to the North Korean president implied a bias of any kind. The source cited (a N Korean government website) only points to the fact that the official gave the gift, the author of that paragraph (you?) used his own conjecture to presume that implied a bias. Same goes for the other 'talking points'. I deleted the Lou Dobbs paragraph because it was uncited until recently. Notice that I haven't removed it now that its claim can be verified. POV is a secondary concern here. The glaring problem with you and your buddies here is that you knowingly add statements that are unsubstantiated; statements concocted in your own minds. Amibidhrohi 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow, so much misinformation, so little time. "There's no rationale that justifies your stance that the two have to have "Controversy" sections of the same size." instead of me justifying news sites being treated equally, why don't you justify the sites being treated so blatantly differently? and no, a memo being sent out doesn't cut it. "and sites that are cited do NOT imply the information you actually add into the entry." I didn't add any information, i merely added a couple citations for information that somebody else put up there. "No source exists that ever argued that a CNN official's giving gifts to the North Korean president implied a bias of any kind." the section is entitled "CONTROVERSIES and allegation of bias." "The glaring problem with you and your buddies..." I don't have any buddies on here, just other Wiki editors who notice the same POV problems with your editing as i do. "you knowingly add statements that are unsubstantiated" I didn't add any statements, and everything up there was cited. apparently, you and only you get to decide what is substantiated to your liking, otherwise you delete it. of course this scrutiny only applies to statements that you personally don't like or agree with. RonMexico 13:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just checked amib's cite to his socialist worker website and the quote cited was directed at the entire news media and not CNN, thus I deleted it.RonMexico 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is too witless to warrant answering...

RONMEXICO, Your 'fair and balanced' eyes missed a few paragraphs.Learn to read.

"Amanpour’s charges are pretty mild when you consider that the press didn’t just muzzle itself. In fact, it willingly and, often, consciously perpetrated fraud throughout the war. Amanpour’s network spent millions of dollars to build two parallel news operations--one aimed at CNN’s non-U.S. customers and one aimed at the U.S. The CNN reports shown outside the U.S. took a more sober, evenhanded approach to the war. On the other hand, the CNN reports shown in the U.S. were relentlessly upbeat, filled with experts describing battlefield tactics as if they were reporting on the Super Bowl.Anyone who watched war coverage on CNN--or MSNBC, CBS, Fox or ABC for that matter--had no doubt what team the announcers were rooting for. Yet Amanpour’s self-criticism is rare to hear in the media these days. For the few who even recognize that the media may have something to account for, the attitude of Newsweek online columnist Christopher Dickey is probably more common." Amibidhrohi 20:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an easy solution: leave both sides of the allegations of bias and misreporting in the article. You have to remember that before 2001, this network was frequently called the Clinton News Network. Furthermore, Turner is an unabashed liberal. At the same time, CNN was a very big proponent of war, or at least they appeared to be, in 2002. Both sets of information should be in the article in my opinion. BlueGoose 21:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against that so long the allegations are verifiable. Many scholars refer to the media 'liberal bias' allegation as a myth. Clearly some of the editors here are conservatives who have gone along with that allegation without actually reviewing the basis of such claims. That is evident in their shoddy work in compiling the allegations for the Controversy section. IF the allegations can be supported with trustworthy sources that back the claims actually being made (personal blogs were used by someone here, which is laughable), I'll have no reason to remove them. But personal conjecture cannot be included in the entry here. As I said, I kept the Lou Dobbs bit because it has backing. The North Korea bit and the paragraph on an error don't have any evidence of actual wrongdoing to support them. If the editors here weren't effectively anonymous, these allegations would legally fall in the category of libel. Amibidhrohi 23:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:"IF the allegations can be supported with trustworthy sources", yes we definitely need more trustworthy sources such as the esteemed and clearly neutral news source of socialistworker.org. "The North Korea bit and the paragraph on an error don't have any evidence of actual wrongdoing to support them." again, the section is entitled "controversies and allegations of bias", the section is not entitled "wrongdoing by CNN". "these allegations would legally fall in the category of libel." someone apparently didn't go to law school. Bluegoose, if you look at the socialistworker site used to support Amib's claim about CNN supporting the war, you will see that the comments made were about the media in general and not CNN specifically. RonMexico 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the North Korea allegation an example of controversy or bias? The source is a North Korean website that merely acknowleges the gift was given. There is nothing to suggest either a controversy or a bias. Socialistworker.org is an established website, so I see no problem with that. It's every bit as reliable as Fox News that you so rabidly support. If you go to the website I posted, it specifically mentions CNN by name. The second article is carried by several news sources in addition to Newsday, also mentioning CNN by name. Amibidhrohi 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It's every bit as reliable as Fox News that you so rabidly support." i'm not sure where you are getting this from. as i have said, i'm in favor of a concise and fair controversies section for both news sites. i have never gone and deleted the entire controversies section because i don't like what it says. this is what you have done. by the way..."don't have any evidence of actual wrongdoing to support them." i don't think you really want this to be the standard. if you do, i have some serious editing to do. RonMexico 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable. You've repeatedly re-added the allegation regarding CNN's covering of the mine disaster even though that was only backed by some person's personal blog. On the other hand, you deleted allegations that CNN engaged in 'self-muzzling' because of your skewed interpretation of an article I posted from a reputable source. Your agenda is clear: protect every allegation that suggests CNN presents liberal bias. Of couse, that agenda can't be supported if there's also evidence that CNN gave the conservative/neoconservative Bush administration unwarranted benefits of the doubt, so you have to delete those evidences as well, which you have done repeatedly. Never mind your POV vandalisms on the Fox News page...I don't know if you're employed by Fox News, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were. By the way, what's your definition of the word "fair"? Amibidhrohi 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

copying and pasting from the socialistworker website you cited, "CNN REPORTER Christiane Amanpour recently made news when she denounced the media for acting as cheerleaders for the Bush war drive against Iraq. "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," it is a "skewed interpretation" for me to think that she was directing her comments against the media in general? I was not the one who added the the mine coverage story. although i don't know why one person's opinion is okay to put on here when it is Christiane Amanpour but not okay when it was that New Republic writer's(don't remember his name) blog. as for who is vandalizing and who is not. i will leave that for others to decide, although i think it is pretty obvious. i will note that i have never tried to delete entire sections. you, on the other hand, have. "By the way, what's your definition of the word "fair"?" the same standard on both boards. on foxnews, the Amib standard is that anything that can be cited belongs on there. on cnn, the Amib standard has been changing alot, but now it appears to be that there must be evidence of actual wrong-doing. my definition of fair would involve employing an equal standard, period. RonMexico 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]