Is CNN non-partisan?

[Truthmatters]

Media matters shows cold hard evidence of what they claim.

They provide the actual tape of people saying the shit they claim they say.

Your ******* site does phony polls, spews hate on higher education, spews hate on science and spews hate on history.

 

[Rozman]

I will never forget this video with a CNN reporter interviewing a father with his young son early on when the Tea party was just getting started.The Young woman reporter from CNN asked the father why he was there and what exactly is the Tea Party.Mid way through the mans response this young lady started yelling at the guy because according to the reporter he was wrong in his response.She is yelling at the guy that he's wrong right in front of his kid.Is this the new way of reporting these days where the reporter doesn't report what's going on but becomes part of the story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Debate would be elevated immensely here if everyone - on both sides - could get over the habit of attacking the source of information, thinking that that is an effective refutation of the information itself.

It is not. Period.

 

[Truthmatters]

questioning the lies or misinformation spewers IS the job of a reporter.

 

[Intense]

That is a biased study by a group who has an OBVIOUS bias.

please detail the studies/information they have skewed.....

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

I used to watch Aaron Brown all the time. I just haven't totally forgiven What's his name for making an ass out of himself during Katrina. Anderson Pooper, is it? The Tea Bagger guy, thats him. I remember the wist in his eye's when he used that term to depict them.

Honestly, for certain kinds of news I do watch CNN. I scan all the relevant News Channels, with one exception, MSNBC.

 

[edthecynic]

Read more: CNN Claims No Favorites, But MRC Data Shows Campaign Coverage Skewed Left [UPDATED with CNN Reaction] | NewsBusters.org

MRC has no credibility. They are a radical extremist Right wing group of crybabies who make a living playing the CON$ervative perpetual VICTIM card.

you can always try making example of, remarking upon and debating the information they post and make any case you wish...or is that to hard?

No problem. Below is what they call an example of media bias. The GOP made up a phony gaffe and according to MRC any media that didn't spread the GOP lie is biased against CON$ervatism.

Gore asked the curator to ID Lafayette and John Paul Jones. The curator named more busts than Gore asked him to name. Gore named Franklin himself without any help from the curator, and Washington was not among the group of busts on wall sconces that Gore pointed to. Washington was in another part of the room to the "extreme right" of the group Gore pointed to.

And MRC knew it! They revealed that they know they were lying by the way they manipulated their video. Since Gore talks over the curator when Gore names the bust of Franklin, it's easy to miss if you don't see Gore repoint to the bust of Franklin when he names it and they can't just edit that part out because it would also remove the curator's voice, so MRC makes their video only stutter at that point. Without the visual cue it is easy to miss Gore naming Franklin.

Which Vice President is the King of Gaffes?
Watch our video collection of Gore Gaffes
**** On ABC's This Week March 14, Bill Kristol noted Al Gore's gotten a free pass on gaffes. George Stephanopoulos protested: "It's hard to say he's gotten a pass. Every time he opens his mouth he gets popped." Not true on TV morning and evening newscasts:
**** January 17, 1993: In a tour of Monticello, Gore asked about a row of busts: "Who are these people?" The New York Times explained the curator "helpfully identified the unfamiliar faces: 'This is George Washington on the extreme right and Franklin on the left...
L. Brent Bozell III, Publisher; Brent Baker, Tim Graham, Editors; Jessica Anderson, Brian Boyd, Geoffrey Dickens, Mark Drake, Paul Smith, Media Analysts; Kristina Sewell, Research Associate.* For the latest liberal media bias, read the CyberAlert at www.mrc.org.

 

[daveman]

Mediaresearch tries to impugn someone ELSE"S credibility by showing, or claiming to show, that they have a partisan bias?

Isn't that a bit ironic?

MRC doesn't claim to be unbiased. Their mission is to reveal bias in the media.

Neither does mediamatters.

Foxnews, on the other hand, claims to be fair and balanced. I wonder if mediaresearch did this same study on their primetime guests for October.

Can't you tell the difference between Fox's news and opinion shows?

 

[NYcarbineer]

please detail the studies/information they have skewed.....

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

I used to watch Aaron Brown all the time. I just haven't totally forgiven What's his name for making an ass out of himself during Katrina. Anderson Pooper, is it? The Tea Bagger guy, thats him. I remember the wist in his eye's when he used that term to depict them.

Honestly, for certain kinds of news I do watch CNN. I scan all the relevant News Channels, with one exception, MSNBC.

The primetime portions of CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS are not 'news' programs. If people would get that through their heads a whole lot of unnecessary discussion could be eliminated.

 

[britishbulldog]

CNN is funded by the Chinese enemy and is full of Chinese spies.

 

[NYcarbineer]

MRC doesn't claim to be unbiased. Their mission is to reveal bias in the media.

Neither does mediamatters.

Foxnews, on the other hand, claims to be fair and balanced. I wonder if mediaresearch did this same study on their primetime guests for October.

Can't you tell the difference between Fox's news and opinion shows?

Mediaresearch's study was on CNN's primetime shows.

 

[goldcatt]

Every News Network is serving It's own interest first.

Yep. They all tailor their product to their target market.

I always thought of CNN as Clinton News Network. They seem to cater more to the Clintonesque middle/left than MSNBC's tilt toward the more progressive solid left.

But these discussions are always so subjective, you might as well just look in a mirror.

 

[Trajan]

That is a biased study by a group who has an OBVIOUS bias.

please detail the studies/information they have skewed.....

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

no one is free from knee jerk lapses, I am not an exception btw. Its not a healthy practice either.

However I try and I think I make an effort to read an article someones posts and address that or the conclusion(s) drawn from it.
I agree that just sweeping something aside based on who crafted it is silly unless you have read it and point to what one may feel are inaccuracies or slant etc....generalizations abound when it comes to some media sources eh, you've never swept aside a FOX link peremptorily?

the OP contains a link and a conclusion, by mrc that appears to show a heavy slant , truth matters or you are free to challenge it......

 

[edthecynic]

please detail the studies/information they have skewed.....

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

no one is free from knee jerk lapses, I am not an exception btw. Its not a healthy practice either.

However I try and I think I make an effort to read an article someones posts and address that or the conclusion(s) drawn from it.
I agree that just sweeping something aside based on who crafted it is silly unless you have read it and point to what one may feel are inaccuracies or slant etc....generalizations abound when it comes to some media sources eh, you've never swept aside a FOX link peremptorily?

the OP contains a link and a conclusion, by mrc that appears to show a heavy slant , truth matters or you are free to challenge it......

MRC gives no backup to their claims. They don't show who they are labeling as Liberal and CON$ervative. They could be easily labeling CON$ as nonpolitical and moderates as Libs. MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

CNN Claims 'No Favorites,' But New MRC Data Documents Its Liberal Skew

 

[Trajan]

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

no one is free from knee jerk lapses, I am not an exception btw. Its not a healthy practice either.

However I try and I think I make an effort to read an article someones posts and address that or the conclusion(s) drawn from it.
I agree that just sweeping something aside based on who crafted it is silly unless you have read it and point to what one may feel are inaccuracies or slant etc....generalizations abound when it comes to some media sources eh, you've never swept aside a FOX link peremptorily?

the OP contains a link and a conclusion, by mrc that appears to show a heavy slant , truth matters or you are free to challenge it......

MRC gives no backup to their claims. They don't show who they are labeling as Liberal and CON$ervative. They could be easily labeling CON$ as nonpolitical and moderates as Libs. MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

CNN Claims 'No Favorites,' But New MRC Data Documents Its Liberal Skew

MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

hey NY carbineer? see this? is this what you mean?



edthecynic- from the graph yes that appears so, they don't name names, its a graph, have you visited their site to dig in to how they counted or crafted their coincuslions?

what back up do you have for the statement I highlighted above?

 

[Immanuel]

That is a biased study by a group who has an OBVIOUS bias.

Well, this from the most biased member of USMB.

I suppose, "It takes one to know one", applies in this case.

Immie

 

[edthecynic]

no one is free from knee jerk lapses, I am not an exception btw. Its not a healthy practice either.

However I try and I think I make an effort to read an article someones posts and address that or the conclusion(s) drawn from it.
I agree that just sweeping something aside based on who crafted it is silly unless you have read it and point to what one may feel are inaccuracies or slant etc....generalizations abound when it comes to some media sources eh, you've never swept aside a FOX link peremptorily?

the OP contains a link and a conclusion, by mrc that appears to show a heavy slant , truth matters or you are free to challenge it......

MRC gives no backup to their claims. They don't show who they are labeling as Liberal and CON$ervative. They could be easily labeling CON$ as nonpolitical and moderates as Libs. MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

CNN Claims 'No Favorites,' But New MRC Data Documents Its Liberal Skew

MRC has a reputation for dishonesty so they must verify everything before it can be believed.

hey NY carbineer? see this? is this what you mean?



edthecynic- from the graph yes that appears so, they don't name names, its a graph, have you visited their site to dig in to how they counted or crafted their coincuslions?

what back up do you have for the statement I highlighted above?

Obviously I did because I posted the link to MRC in the post you edited my quote from! sheesh

And I already posted an example for backup in this thread with their Gore at Monticello gaffe lie.

 

[Intense]

Ah, so you're saying that just because a source might have a political leaning it doesn't mean that you can automatically dismiss their stories, research, claims, etc.,

on that alone? That the material itself might be factual? Might be credible evidence?

lol, tell that to all those on the right who try to immediately dismiss anything sourced to mediamatters, or the huffingtonpost, thinkprogress, etc., etc.

I used to watch Aaron Brown all the time. I just haven't totally forgiven What's his name for making an ass out of himself during Katrina. Anderson Pooper, is it? The Tea Bagger guy, thats him. I remember the wist in his eye's when he used that term to depict them.

Honestly, for certain kinds of news I do watch CNN. I scan all the relevant News Channels, with one exception, MSNBC.

The primetime portions of CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS are not 'news' programs. If people would get that through their heads a whole lot of unnecessary discussion could be eliminated.

I do think most of us know the difference between commentary and news. The News channels all have both.

 

[Ragnar]

Power Line - Name that party (CNN edition)

I posted the above link just the other day. The "Name the Party" game is a pretty well known, and well documented via the MRC website Newsbusters. The above is Power Line but it refers to CNN so I posted it.

 

[daveman]

Neither does mediamatters.

Foxnews, on the other hand, claims to be fair and balanced. I wonder if mediaresearch did this same study on their primetime guests for October.

Can't you tell the difference between Fox's news and opinion shows?

Mediaresearch's study was on CNN's primetime shows.

Fair enough. A lot of people can't ell the difference, and so screech "Fox News is skewed to the right!!!"

 

[daveman]

Power Line - Name that party (CNN edition)

I posted the above link just the other day. The "Name the Party" game is a pretty well known, and well documented via the MRC website Newsbusters. The above is Power Line but it refers to CNN so I posted it.

AP also names Democrats by omission.