CNN: 16 Negative Trump stories on front page, but not one story...

[iamwhatiseem]

... on the steel aluminum tariffs that have unions singing praises.
Not one.
16 negative stories about tweets, asking stupid questions like "why do some Americans believe he is a racist?"..various hollywood rants about him...etc. But not one story on such a large important act.

Nah.... no bias here.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Nothing on Faux’s homepage either. Must be because massive tariffs are universally opposed by anybody with a brain.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Nothing on Faux’s homepage either. Must be because massive tariffs are universally opposed by anybody with a brain.

They have talked about it throughout the morning.
Good or bad, it is kind of a big deal. Bigger than childish, meaningless rock throwing stories like this.

 

[Sunni Man]

Pres. Trump is the best president America has had in decades. ...

 

[percysunshine]

... on the steel aluminum tariffs that have unions singing praises.
Not one.
16 negative stories about tweets, asking stupid questions like "why do some Americans believe he is a racist?"..various hollywood rants about him...etc. But not one story on such a large important act.

Nah.... no bias here.

You must be the only person left on the planet who watches CNN.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

... on the steel aluminum tariffs that have unions singing praises.
Not one.
16 negative stories about tweets, asking stupid questions like "why do some Americans believe he is a racist?"..various hollywood rants about him...etc. But not one story on such a large important act.

Nah.... no bias here.

You must be the only person left on the planet who watches CNN.

Front page as in website, not watching

 

[Moonglow]

You do know there are more news providers than CNN or Faux?

 

[Uncensored2008]

... on the steel aluminum tariffs that have unions singing praises.
Not one.
16 negative stories about tweets, asking stupid questions like "why do some Americans believe he is a racist?"..various hollywood rants about him...etc. But not one story on such a large important act.

Nah.... no bias here.

Not a word about racist Chuck Schumer refusing to confirm judicial appointees based on their skin color either,

If Mitch McConnel had refused to confirm Obama appointees on the grounds that they were black, I'm guessing the NY Times might have actually run a story

 

[Pogo]

... on the steel aluminum tariffs that have unions singing praises.
Not one.
16 negative stories about tweets, asking stupid questions like "why do some Americans believe he is a racist?"..various hollywood rants about him...etc. But not one story on such a large important act.

Nah.... no bias here.

Of course no link, so one navigates to cnn.com and finds in big font with a picture:

Rump's Week Was Not So Crazy After All (with references to heavy metal tariffs along with other issues)

and under that heading a more specific story:

Rump's Tariff Move Shows He Flunked Economics

And then elsewhere up the main page, probably the most informative too:
Rump's Tariffs Are for Places Where he Needs to Win Back Support

Guess you're right --- "not one story". Three stories.
I stopped reading there. I don't like involuntary pop-up videos.

/thread

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do know there are more news providers than CNN or Faux?

Besides, if we are going to contrast extremes, it should be Daily Stormer and CNN

Fox is mid-stream

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You do know there are more news providers than CNN or Faux?

Not really. There are basically no news providers, plenty of agenda peddlers but not news. They wouldn't make it.
News and money used to be separate. The news departments broke even at best, and had wonderful autonomy from upstairs offices.
Of course that is no longer true, and hasn't been for several decades.
60 minutes was the first news show that began to make real money. This immediately drew interest from bean counters everywhere. And from that day forward, news disappeared.

 

[Pogo]

You do know there are more news providers than CNN or Faux?

Not really. There are basically no news providers, plenty of agenda peddlers but not news. They wouldn't make it.
News and money used to be separate. The news departments broke even at best, and had wonderful autonomy from upstairs offices.
Of course that is no longer true, and hasn't been for several decades.
60 minutes was the first news show that began to make real money. This immediately drew interest from bean counters everywhere. And from that day forward, news disappeared.

"Network" news was always a loss leader. When such TV programs existed to disseminate actual news they were subsidized by the sitcoms that followed them later in the evening. They only existed at all because FCC requires as a condition of license that they serve their community with some kind of programming "in the public interest", and such news programming would be what the licensee would point to at renewal time. Along with the 5am farm market report and the city council meeting conveniently telecast at 3am on Wednesday.

"60 Minutes" was (is) a magazine, not a news program. Profiles of people and issues. That's more profitable than straight news --- especially when you give it a prime time slot like Sunday early evening. But that's not what morphed "news" into "whatever we have now".

CNN was the first outlet to try to make news a round-the-clock affair for an increasingly fast-paced world and its specious concept of "immediacy in everything". And it worked out OK in that if one wanted the news outside the old standard hours, it was there.

In the mid-'90s Rupert Murdoch, who had built a fortune selling sleazy tabloid newspapers around the world, brought that sensibility to television, creating Fox News Channel.

Doing real news is an expensive proposition -- it requires flying people around the world, satellite phones and remote satellite trucks, running foreign news bureaus worldwide, and producers who can stream all of what comes in into a coherent presentation. Fox Noise evaded all that by creating not a news channel but a channel about the news already in. Instead of flying people everywhere and streaming original content, they plunked talking heads in a studio to talk about stories and their implications. One guy pounding his fist on a camera is way cheaper than teams of bureaus and satellites and airplane tickets.

"News" -- as in genuine news, a simple neutral what-where-who-when report, doesn't particularly "sell", nor is it supposed to. But emotion sells like proverbial hotcakes. Fear and loathing, and anger, and dystopian despair will always draw eyeballs. Murdoch understood this from his daze selling trashy tabloids and applied it to TV, creating basically a gossip channel that, instead of gossip about celebrities purveyed gossip about politicians. It even pulled Bill O'Reilly from another network's gossip-about-celebrities hack show to be one of its talking heads.

And the Fox Noise model is always about emotion --- always centered on people rather than policy, always dressed up in garishly colored studio sets to grab the eye, always displaying Barbie-doll women in miniskirts, always whooshing suggestive chyrons across the screen. All of this is psychological manipulation to grab eyeballs and keep them tuned in (the fear factor -- "we'll be back to tell you how Barack O'bama, scary black man, booga booga, is coming to take your guns after this word for Viagra"). All of that is designed, meticulously, to build ratings because ratings mean ad dollars. Of course in that scenario the first casualty in the quest for profit is Truth.

That ^^ is where news morphed into emotional bullshit, my friend. And CNN, to its eternal discredit, followed Fox Noise down the same hole in the same quest for profit.

That's basically why profit motive and truth are mutually exclusive. The former will always bend the latter to its will.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You do know there are more news providers than CNN or Faux?

Not really. There are basically no news providers, plenty of agenda peddlers but not news. They wouldn't make it.
News and money used to be separate. The news departments broke even at best, and had wonderful autonomy from upstairs offices.
Of course that is no longer true, and hasn't been for several decades.
60 minutes was the first news show that began to make real money. This immediately drew interest from bean counters everywhere. And from that day forward, news disappeared.

"Network" news was always a loss leader. When such TV programs existed to disseminate actual news they were subsidized by the sitcoms that followed them later in the evening. They only existed at all because FCC requires as a condition of license that they serve their community with some kind of programming "in the public interest", and such news programming would be what the licensee would point to at renewal time. Along with the 5am farm market report and the city council meeting conveniently telecast at 3am on Wednesday.

"60 Minutes" was (is) a magazine, not a news program. Profiles of people and issues. That's more profitable than straight news --- especially when you give it a prime time slot like Sunday early evening. But that's not what morphed "news" into "whatever we have now".

CNN was the first outlet to try to make news a round-the-clock affair for an increasingly fast-paced world and its specious concept of "immediacy in everything". And it worked out OK in that if one wanted the news outside the old standard hours, it was there.

In the mid-'90s Rupert Murdoch, who had built a fortune selling sleazy tabloid newspapers around the world, brought that sensibility to television, creating Fox News Channel.

Doing real news is an expensive proposition -- it requires flying people around the world, satellite phones and remote satellite trucks, running foreign news bureaus worldwide, and producers who can stream all of what comes in into a coherent presentation. Fox Noise evaded all that by creating not a news channel but a channel about the news already in. Instead of flying people everywhere and streaming original content, they plunked talking heads in a studio to talk about stories and their implications. One guy pounding his fist on a camera is way cheaper than teams of bureaus and satellites and airplane tickets.

"News" -- as in genuine news, a simple neutral what-where-who-when report, doesn't particularly "sell", nor is it supposed to. But emotion sells like proverbial hotcakes. Fear and loathing, and anger, and dystopian despair will always draw eyeballs. Murdoch understood this from his daze selling trashy tabloids and applied it to TV, creating basically a gossip channel that, instead of gossip about celebrities purveyed gossip about politicians. It even pulled Bill O'Reilly from another network's gossip-about-celebrities hack show to be one of its talking heads.

And the Fox Noise model is always about emotion --- always centered on people rather than policy, always dressed up in garishly colored studio sets to grab the eye, always displaying Barbie-doll women in miniskirts, always whooshing suggestive chyrons across the screen. All of this is psychological manipulation to grab eyeballs and keep them tuned in (the fear factor -- "we'll be back to tell you how Barack O'bama, scary black man, booga booga, is coming to take your guns after this word for Viagra"). All of that is designed, meticulously, to build ratings because ratings mean ad dollars. Of course in that scenario the first casualty in the quest for profit is Truth.

That ^^ is where news morphed into emotional bullshit, my friend. And CNN, to its eternal discredit, followed Fox Noise down the same hole in the same quest for profit.

That's basically why profit motive and truth are mutually exclusive. The former will always bend the latter to its will.

60 minutes was a news show, if you know what news is.
News isn't simply a person sitting in front of a camera going down a list of notable occurrences, that is one kind of news. Another is to provide longer segments on more important matters that allows a far greater depth of reporting. Indeed, these types of shows are more important than the 22 minute nightly rundown.
The O'Reilly factor was one of them at one point. You will of course disagree, because you only saw momentary clips of the worst of it. And his opinions differs from yours. Later that show became a mockery of what it once was, as he, like all others chose money over content and began highlighting "the blonde of the month" as well of course as to tune the stories to his audience liking.
This country desperately needs hard news shows. None exist.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

And BTW, the reason I "pick" on CNN is because everyone knows Fox is bent. There is no argument to that, and they do not try to deny it.
CNN, however tries to present itself as a "higher plane" than Fox, and they, in my opinion, are actually worse. At this point they are basically a political organization pretending to be a news provider. Fox just sings to the choir. CNN is far worse.

 

[MarathonMike]

It's March and I have "sampled" CNN close to once a day. So out of say 50 samples, there were ZERO positive reports on Trump. I cannot remember the last time I saw anything positive about Donad Trump reported on CNN.

 

[Pogo]

60 minutes was a news show, if you know what news is.

I do, and no it wasn't. "60 Minutes" never reported anything that hadn't been reported before, and that's what news is. If you already know about it ---- then it's not news.

"News" means reporting that "at X time in Y place, Z happened". Any later analysis of what was behind Z happening, is commentary.

 

[Pogo]

And BTW, the reason I "pick" on CNN is because everyone knows Fox is bent. There is no argument to that, and they do not try to deny it.
CNN, however tries to present itself as a "higher plane" than Fox, and they, in my opinion, are actually worse. At this point they are basically a political organization pretending to be a news provider. Fox just sings to the choir. CNN is far worse.

Well you missed at least three tariff stories in your own OP so cry me a river.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

60 minutes was a news show, if you know what news is.

I do, and no it wasn't. "60 Minutes" never reported anything that hadn't been reported before, and that's what news is. If you already know about it ---- then it's not news.

"News" means reporting that "at X time in Y place, Z happened". Any later analysis of what was behind Z happening, is commentary.

I do believe you are old enough to remember 60 minutes of old.
They absolutely reported on news that was never reported on - nationwide. Sure the stories hit news agencies in their respective areas, but without national shows - we would have never known about it. And that..is news.
It also presented greater knowledge about a story, not just X and Y. 60 minutes when it began was little commentary, almost 100% investigative journalism. Once it began making money - that is when it turned into something else.