Jump to content

Talk:CNN

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Possible Israel bias at CNN

[edit]
Thread retitled from Israel bias at CNN, Jews overrepresented in top positions, Jewish ownership/control. WP:TALKHEADPOV O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit ...

Israel bias at CNN, Jews overrepresented in top positions, Jewish ownership/control

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-israel-bias

https://www.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-790054

https://theintercept.com/2024/03/01/cnn-christiane-amanpour-israel-gaza-coverage/

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/pro-israel-bias-grips-cnn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainstream_media

The "Big five" mainstream media conglomerates are primarily owned and run by five Zionists, four of them Jewish, Rupert Murdoch (Fox), Brian L. Roberts (Comcast), Bob Iger (Disney), David Zaslav (Warner), and Shari Redstone (Paramount), leading to the "homogenization of viewpoints presented to news consumers." 67.173.188.255 (talk) 14:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first two articles could be a useful inclusion. However, as for your statements: Jews overrepresented in top positions, Jewish ownership/control, The "Big five" mainstream media conglomerates are primarily owned and run by five Zionists, four of them Jewish,.... I see nothing in those articles that even mentions Jews. Unless I'm missing something, I suggest you strike these comments as they appear ro be WP:SYNTH and, frankly speaking, antisemitic. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the others, but Bob Iger does not own Disney. He will remain CEO until his contract expires in 2026. Rupert Murdoch retired back in 2023, and he has been replaced by Lachlan Murdoch. Dimadick (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2024

[edit]

Add section: KFILE (K-File)

In 2016, Andrew Kaczynski's investigative political research team at BuzzFeed News was hired away by CNN

https://www.politico.com/media/story/2016/10/cnn-hires-away-buzzfeeds-investigative-k-file-team-004792/

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/andrew-kaczynski-cnn-buzzfeed_n_57f19097e4b0c2407cde7396?76lg6z35f6layvi=

https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-grabs-entire-buzzfeed-political-team/

https://www.cnn.com/politics/kfile

69.181.17.113 (talk) 22:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. This doesn't seem to me to be notable enough for the main CNN article, and might fit better at History of CNN or somewhere similar. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"CNN Underscored" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect CNN Underscored has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 26 § CNN Underscored until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 20:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN now found liable for defamation

[edit]

" A Florida jury on Friday found CNN liable for defaming a U.S. Navy veteran involved in private evacuation work in Afghanistan, a blow to the network’s reputation that also leaves it on the hook for potentially tens of millions of dollars in punitive damages."

Will probably be added in the coming days.

https://www.wsj.com/business/media/cnn-found-liable-for-defaming-u-s-navy-veteran-in-afghanistan-evacuation-story-619ed824?mod=hp_lead_pos4 Just10A (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2025

[edit]
203.158.47.68 (talk) 11:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PLs edit request

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 May 2025

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 12:09, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CNN → Cable News Network – On Wikipedia, we try to avoid acronyms as much as possible (for example, we use Federal Bureau of Investigation instead of FBI, National Basketball Association instead of NBA, Louisiana State University instead of LSU, etc). Therefore, it would be strange to do "CNN" over "Cable News Network". Vanleos (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Not disrespected the move request, but it appears that "CNN" is commonly used name per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Even within the network itself, they almost never called CNN "Cable News Network" unless they use the name for legal purposes, implied that CNN also avaliable in satellite dishes worldwide and even avaliable terrestrially in many countries as "free-to-air" channel. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 19:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "CNN" is so common that I'm not sure folks know what it stands for. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, mostly per WP:ACROTITLE: In general, if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. and per Objective3000 CNN is so much more common (ngrams (will have some false positives for other CNNs but not very many) it is likely there are readers who don't what Cable News Network is (which also has consistently been declining in ngrams since 1992). The examples given in nom are much more commonly referred to by their full name than CNN is. Skynxnex (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per common name (recognizability) and consistency with other broadcast networks. NBC, CBS, MTV, BBC, HBO, and PBS are among the many, many examples. Exceptions like Canadian Broadcasting Company and Australian Broadcasting Company mainly occur where disambiguation is necessary. Even in such cases, sometimes another disambiguator is used when the initialism is considered far more recognizable, i.e. ITV (TV network). --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Myceteae, did you read the examples I provided above? How many people say "National Basketball Association" over NBA? How many people say "Federal Bureau of Investigation" over FBI? Vanleos (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point is, Wikipedia uses those names, despite them not being common. Vanleos (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search for the term "Cable News Network" returns mostly auto-generated CNN business profiles (such as FCC and Bloomberg pages). "National Basketball Association" returns dozens of pages of relevant, mostly official, NBA-related sites.
    CNN themselves minimally use the non-abbreviated form, which in my opinion, further supports that CNN is the common name used by both the organization and the public. On the other hand, NBA regularly uses their non-abbreviated form in materials and branding, therefore it is recognizable. Tvfunhouse (talk) 14:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I did consider the other examples and I agree with what Tvfunhouse and others have said. Yes, NBA and FBI are more commonly abbreviated than not. However, their full names are sufficiently common that they easily satisfy the Recognizability criterion: The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize. (See: WP:CRITERIA section of Wikipedia:Article titles policy.) This is not the case with CNN, whose full name is almost never used and is likely unfamiliar even to millions of people who watch it every day.
    Article title decisions rarely–if ever–hinge on a single fact or policy. "CNN" is better than "Cable News Network" on all five article title CRITERIA. The guidance at MOS:ACROTITLE aligns with the general policies and guidelines and covers their specific application to acronyms (including initialisms). As Skynxnex has already quoted, the key directive here is (emphasis added): if readers somewhat familiar with the subject are likely to only recognise the name by its acronym, then the acronym should be used as a title. The issue here is not only that CNN is the common name, it is the only name most readers are likely to recognize. "Cable News Network" will confuse or surprise most readers, whereas Federal Bureau of Investigations, National Basketball Association, and the full names of most universities are recognizable and easily understood even if people most often abbreviate. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Long-standing WP:COMMONNAME. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above, the long name isn't commonly used. DankJae 22:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. —theMainLogan (t•c) 02:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:ACROTITLE, its specification in the lead seems sufficient in this context. Tvfunhouse (talk) 03:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and SNOW close – See NBC, CBS, HBO, PBS, NPR, BBC, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN&oldid=1290689148"