Talk:CNN/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Details please....

The USA military experts for propaganda are known to have taken part in editorial policy of CNN and AOL Time Warner corporation.

Check out the link http://www.fair.org/activism/cnn-psyops.html ad see it yourself. Maybe you will become disilusioned a bit. -J

I read it. The FAIR page doesn't actually make that claim. It just wonders

what the hell those guys were doing working in the newsroom. I agree that it was wrong for them to be there, but your claims are unsupported by your source. Robert Merkel 01:01 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Need expansion and NPOV'ing. For example, opinions toward CNN are generally positive in China where it is widely seen as more accurate than the government news.

It has also gained substantial notoriety in many parts of the world for its shameless use of spin doctors and very liberal attitude towards truth.

I dont know what are opinions in China, but in Eastern Europe and Arab world CNN is widely despised. Its use of spin doctors is well known, and you can compare it to BBC (which has similar goals and reach) to see how simpleminded and unprofessional CNN is. Its agressive unobjectivity is a symbol of everything bad which comes from America to many people, and do not try to censor that! -J

Again, too strong. CNN has its critics, many which you haven't mentioned (for instance, as I understand it many US right-wingers regard it as "too liberal"), it's hopelessly US-centric, and seems incapable of questioning US foriegn policy, but "widely despised"? Make your claims in the article more specific.

It's not CNN's job to question foreign policy of the U.S. or any other nation. It's their job to objectively report the facts, something more Wikipedians need to take a look at. NPOV is not categorically listing all viewpoints of a topic - it is describing something objectively and neutrally.

Moved from article until sources are substantiated (SCCarlson 03:08 Apr 11, 2003 (UTC)):

The USA military experts for propaganda are known to have taken part in editorial policy of CNN, more precisely US Army's 4th Psychological Operations (PSYOPS) Group, according to reports in the Dutch newspaper Trouw (2/21/00, 2/25/00) and France's Intelligence Newsletter (2/17/00).

Naming

Surely the name of this page is wrong, as the acronym is universally used now? LUDRAMAN | T 02:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Anchors' political affiliations

Not that I necessarily doubt the majority of CNN anchors are Democrats--which, I might add, would only reflect the general leanings of TV and newspaper journalists elsewhere [1]--but where did this list come from? We need to cite a source, at the very least, or get rid of it as irrelevant. As it stands, the article looks like a smear designed to paint CNN as biased, with no hard evidence, only innuendo. Wikisux 20:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What about a piece on Bias Allegations?

Why is there no section on the allegations of bias leveled at CNN like there is on the FOX article?

There are many mainstreem books on the subject, extensive internet comment, and it could be an explaination of the continuing ratings demise of CNN

There isn't a lot of right-wing wikiactivism like there is on the left (see FOX News, and pretty much anything to do with GWB). Some good topics would be http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C16FD3C5F0C728DDDAD0894DB404482 and http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/054944.html

This has been up for a few weeks so I'm adding it. Discuss if you have objections or want to add.

I think we also need to show allegations of Conservative bias on CNN. There's dozens of examples of this. I will prepare a section on this in the comming days and post it. I'd appreciate any contributions anyone wants to add, but there is no shortage of examples of conservative bias on CNN.

I believe that many of the items on CNN's "bias allegations" list are misplaced, incorrect, or an attempt at attributing individuals' cherry-picked comments to the network's coverage as a whole. To be completely open before I begin editing this article, I hold that CBS is America's most liberal station, FOX News is its most right-wing station, and CNN to be my preferred outlet for centrist coverage. I will likely seek to weed out allegations which seem strictly partisan or unsourced in nature. For starters, allegations with no corroboration save National Review are suspcious, to me, given their self-professedly biased source. Shem 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For examples of conservative bias at CNN, there was a recent controversy over the network's coverage of the "Koran abuse" scandal yesterday. CNN.com's initial headline read "Report: Detainees, not soldiers, desecrated Koran" (or something to this effect, I was only told via telephone). It's the first time I've ever heard this individual say that they'd felt FoxNews' coverage of an event was more objective than CNN's, even. ;) I can't find any content on this via search engine yet, so if anyone's more blog-saavy and has seen coverage on this, do post it. Shem ^(talk) 19:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From Talk:FOX News...I agree with the structure Trodel's set up; the CNN page doesn't seem to have any regulars, but would anyone here object to a re-ordering of CNN's sections to follow the FoxNews article's lead? Shem ^(talk) 06:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will rearrange and see if there are any objections since the talk page doesn't seem to stir up much discussion. If you object feel free to revert and discuss. Trödel|talk 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rudi Bakhtiar

Rudi Bakhtiar has been added to the list of CNN personalities (present). Does she now have any regular capacity on the main network? She shouldn't be listed here if she's mainly or exclusively still with Headline News (or, hypothetically, CNN International). Samaritan 15:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) ... hearing nothing, and having seen in outside accounts only that she's back on CNNHN, I've removed her name. Samaritan 02:05, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No sourcing, lots of assertations without backup; strange formatting

I've tried to do some independent verification of facts in this article -- it's proving very difficult.

The number of homes in which the network was exaggerated by 600,000 homes (that's a LOT of people).

There were SEVERAL on line news services prior to Augusto 30, 1995. NY Times was on AOL to name just one. While the phrasing may be accurate -- it's somewhat misleading.

The statement that CNN was first to break the news of the September 11th attacks also could not be verified.

The long lists of personalities and other items in their current format leave much to be desired. Is there a better way?

There's also a bit of the "some say" nonsense in this piece.

Jim Clancy

I think the link "Jim Clancy" in the text doesn't point to CNN's Jim Clancy but to a different one. --85.74.164.156 14:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The "asshole.jpg" allegation.

I do not believe this is relevant to the CNN article. A junior-level employee at Netscape being an angsty brat while saving images in Photoshop (then uploading them) is not in any way relevant to allegations of systemic bias at CNN. Shem ^(talk) 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It had nothing to do with CNN and should not have been there. Equinox137 13:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Jonathan Klein oversaw 60 Minutes II during Memogate/Killian documents."

Jonathan Klein was a former CBS producer when the Killian "memogate" story erupted. He ceased his executive role at CBS in 1998. [2]

Hmm

Hmm, looks like someone maybe hacked this description? It says "CNN, also known as Communist News Network..." but when you edit the page it's not there, the real article is there.

Ok, I fixed it, that was weird - KINGCODER

Dictator vs. leader or President

What is wrong or POV with calling Castro and Kim Jong-il dictators? By looking up the wikipedia definition of dictators, they fit the description. Equinox137 13:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: the hip hop group

C-N-N was the official name of the group Capone-N-Noreaga, a successful mainstream American hip hop group, from 2001 to 2005, while they were signed to Def Jam. Please do not delete the disambiguation link; thank you. --FuriousFreddy 12:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine. If C-N-N was the name of the group, create an article with the name "C-N-N." It does not belong at the top of this piece. Boisemedia 19:30, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the temporary name of a non-notable music group doesn't warrant placement at the top of this article. Please use their "official" names only, thanks. Shem^(talk) 18:41, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Minor Edit Notification

Just edited the link to 'Sky News'. Previously directed to Sky Television, which is old corporation who owned Sky News. Now owned by BSkyB, following merger with other corp in early 1990s. Have changed to Sky News.

Non-Orginal Research

Wikipedia's policy on Non-Original Research is as follows

A Wikipedia entry (including any part of an article) counts as original research if it proposes ideas, that is:

it introduces a theory or method of solution; or

it introduces original ideas; or

it defines new terms; or

it provides new definitions of old terms; or

it introduces an original argument purporting to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position described in the article; or

it introduces neologisms.

I don't see how including "Then and Now" in the bias section violates any of that policy. Equinox137 16:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The claim in question: The opening and closing montage of CNN's Then and Now shorts prominently feature mostly liberal personalities such as Anita Hill and Janet Reno.

You have not cited your sources, and I can find no documentation of this claim elsewhere. How can the claim be verified, then? Have you sat watching this montage with a stopwatch, counting the amount of time each liberal/conservative/centrist/libertarian personality gets in the "Then and Now" opening? Shem^(talk) 17:41, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Even so, there is nothing about the "Then and Now" statement that violates the Wikipedia NOR policy - it seems to me that you're defining the rules any way you want to. But since it's one sentence, it's not that big of an issue to argue over. I'll let it go. Equinox137 14:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you'll let it go because it doesn't hold up under Wikipedia policy. This is no ideological "argument"; I'd have no problem with the statement were there documentation anywhere in print or on the internet of the allegation elsewhere, even a hosted video file of the montage itself, but such is apparently not the case. While a video montage strikes me as a very weak, very thin piece to wield while charging systemic bias, I am more than willing to include critics' reasonings in Wikipedia articles. Shem^(talk) 20:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

What is this?

The list of criticisms is far too long. I think it should be shortened and summarized. --Berserk798 00:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The fact that the history section is shorter than the bias section seems quite odd. Boisemedia 03:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Expand the history section, then. Shem^(talk) 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that Fox News' bias section is at least four times longer than CNN's with hardly any history at all - I disagree. Equinox137 14:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see what the Fox News article has to do with this. If you think the bias section of Fox News article is too long, fix it. The fact is that the bias section for CNN is, in proportion to the rest of the article, rather long. Shem, obviously there's nothing left to say about the history of CNN. The only way to expand it is to make stuff up. --Berserk798 22:27, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Did Osama Bin Ladin work at CNN?

I recently found this news article. http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16298 Is this true? I'm asking before I include it in the article. DyslexicEditor 23:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding me. Shem^(talk) 23:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Bloopers and Pranks (should this be on the site)

-During a live broadcast on CNN Headline News a light bulb fell onto the set causing a minor fire to start - On 2 different occurrences people form Howard Sterns show asked a news anchor live if she supported Howard Stern and replied to a question by saying a fire was started by gas from Howard sterns a**hole. - Wolf Blitzer said during a Hurricane Katrina broadcast that the people were so poor, so black - on CNN Headline news when two anchors were reporting on a Jet Landing problem they ran out of news -Bill Gates was presenting the new Windows 98 it crashed live on CNN

videos of these are available at you tube.com

- an X appeared on Dick Cheney's face on a live brodcast

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

Rush, Savage, Ann Coulter, Hannity, newsbusters.org, need I go on? Equinox137 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

:"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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

"Amanpour: CNN practiced self-censorship CNN's top war correspondent, Christiane Amanpour, says that the press muzzled itself during the Iraq war. And, she says CNN "was intimidated" by the Bush administration and Fox News, which "put a climate of fear and self-censorship."Amibidhrohi 01:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Eason Jordan admitted in the New York Times that he withheld information of Saddam Hussein's atrocities in order to gain access to him during the 2003 Iraq War. [4] In 2005, he resigned after allegations arose on a blog that he accused the U.S. Military of purposely killing journalists. [5] Here's the same article from somewhere that doesn't require subscription: [3]

If you read the actual article, Eason Jordan claims to have been lobbying the Iraqi government for 12 years in order to maintain access. The paragraph on the page suggests he's been lobbying in order to gain access 'to him' during the 2003 war. For 12 years, Jordan predicted this war? There's nothing to suggest that Jordan wanted access to Saddam himself, as the paragraph states. The article clearly states Jordan held back newsworthy information because he feared revelation would endanger the lives of Iraqis working for CNN, the entry does not convey this at all. Also, the phrase "Saddam Hussein's atrocities" implies his direct involvment, which is inaccurate. I don't think anyone will fail to recognize that the government of Iraq is under Saddam Hussein's presidency. The inclusion of the Iraq issue and the controversy over Jordan's blog in one paragraph would seem to imply that Eason Jordan supported Saddam Hussein and actively worked against the Americans. Terribly POV. Im editing the paragraph to convey what the article actually says. Please come back here and discuss before you revert anything. Amibidhrohi 19:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "Similar Networks" section

I'd like to propose we delete the "Similar Networks" section from the page. This section is little more than an inferior copy of Category:24-hour_television_news_channels, the page already makes it clear that CNN is the original 24-hour news channel, and the page is getting too long as it is. I think we should just add a sentence or two to the effect of "After CNN, dozens of similar networks have come along, please see Category:24-hour_television_news_channels for a full list," and dump "Similar Networks" entirely.

Thoughts? Objections? --Aaron 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends on if we have more to say than the category listing - e.g. date of creation, any links from CNN, differences to CNN etc.--Fangz 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well ... the dates seem more like trivia to me than useful information, and describing the differences of all those channels could take an entire page of its own. There's a lot of repetition in there too; all the CNN offshoot networks are listed there even though they already have their own section (CNN#CNN_specialized_channels). Perhaps I should work up a paragraph or two outlining how other news channels around the world have evolved from what CNN started, and use that in place of the current straight list? --Aaron 05:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Celestianpower abusing his/her Admin Powers

It's relevant to note that this particular admin has twice blocked me. I won't argue the reason for the first block (3RR), even though my edits and reverts were plainly directly towards moving information added to the entry that fell within the category of original research.

The second block, which the admin says was due to my 'highly POV' edit, I do take strong exception to. None of my edits even attempted to argue that CNN had a pro-conservative bias (though adding that would constitute balancing the charge that CNN is pro-liberal, which WP advocates in the spirit of NPOV). The information I added simply reflected what was a well-publicized criticism of CNN's performance after 9-11, and their 'kid gloves'(quoted directly from the source)handling of the current administration, especially with regards to pre-war intelligence. I've even challenged Celestianpower to tell me in words exactly in what directing my POV slant went. As always, he/she was silent. Celestianpower has not edited this article once, as far as I can see. He/she has not discussed the edits or warned me of blocks. Aside from the ban itself, Celestianpower engaged in no communication whatsoever.

I'm going to see what can be done by Wikipedia's higher authorities to deal with this problem. I feel noting all this here is important, because it allows readers to understand what voices are being allowed to speak, and which are being muzzled. I take this seriously because I believe the respecting freedom of speech is an ideal that's to be followed everywhere, even if regulation doesn't require it. I thank the other admins here who have helped temporarily address this problem. Amibidhrohi 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

As to my reply being late, sorry, but I've been away for a while and not had time. I'm afraid, you are in fact incorrect. My reason for blocking was two-fold. First, was your 2-3 reverts after your block had expired. I had blocked you for reverting/blanking (per WP:3RR) before and you continued to do so. The second, while out of policy as such (although I could easily claim WP:IAR in this case), was your general POV-pushing and disruptive blanking. There are appropriate channels and you don't do something repeatedly when it's been contested on the talkpage. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR was never stated as the reason for the second block. Of course, you speak of 2-3 'reverts' which wouldn't constitute a violation of 3RR anyway. Also, my edits after the block were not 'blankings', they were mostly additions of two other points that I felt actually were valid bits of information to add here, info that had been removed without explanation while I was blocked. Prior to that, prior to the first block, the only 'blanking' I did was of allegations that were not NPOV interpretations of the texts cited as sources. Even at this late time, after all this arguing, I don't think you've bothered to READ the texts involved. Even now I DARE you to tell me how what I did constitutes POV and in which direction that POV tilts.

The only other people 'contesting' my actions are Aaron and Ronmexico, two people who are devout right-wingers. Just scroll up this bloody page, their 'contesting' has always been on the grounds that I'm making the edits. Nobody contests my criticisms of the article as it was posted on here before I started editing it. Nobody contests that the page as it formally was deliberately misquoted and misinterpreted sources in order to support the claim that CNN was a left-leaning institution that supported Saddam Hussein and North Korea. If you can type so much, I'm sure that you can read. READ the section "Controversy and Allegations of Bias", read the sources and tell me THAT wasn't POV pushing. Read my last edit before you banned me. THEN tell me which is more POV.You've repeatedly accused me of POV pushing without justifying that allegation.

I've gone on the IRC channels and asked that people engage with this page so that conensus mean more than just the opinion of two and their faithful admin-on-call. I don't see why you couldn't observe the text and comment on its POV slant. To this day you've not acknowleged reading the section and seeing how that section changed since I started editing it. My guess is that you've summarily presumed me guilty of POV pushing based squarely on the request of Aaron, and later Ronmexico who was directed to your talk page by Aaron. How's that for judicial temperment. Im surprised Bush didn't nominate you for Supreme Court justice.

If I'm wrong with that allegation, I'd like you to explain how you came to the conclusion that I'm POV pushing.Amibidhrohi 17:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

For further discussion concerning Celestianpower (talk • contribs), please see their talk page. // Pathoschild (_admin / ^talk) 09:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

this is a good channel specialy the website

i throughly enjoyed watching videos on the site specialy the student news it is really nice that people in the cnn took time out of thier busy shedule and made the student news and also i really like the poltical cartoons. they are hilarious. i recomend the site to all. there is something in there for evrey one. thanks ________________________

Website

What did they do to [cnn.com]? I opened it up and went to click where I always do and I found that the whole page was revamped! Does anyone know when they changed it? → J @red ^talk+ _ubx 22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There should be a disambig. page for CNN. It is also used as a shorthand for "Cellular Neural Network", a kind of novel "analogical" CPU design which excels at pattern recognition and other tasks digital computers cannot handle effectively.

Another "Technical Glitch"

CNN aired President's rehearsal LIVE- See Drudge for details

Moving location of Controversies and Allegations bias link

When dealing with separate articles that would/could have been part of a larger subject had they not been so large themselves, I think it is a practice that has worked out very well to give each one a section in the larger subject article and provide a link to it there. See the University of Miami entry, Bill O'Reilly Controversies, and Art History as examples. To have as germane an article as CNN controversies and allegations of bias only linked in the "See Also" section (below "Trivia" and "Similar Networks") seems odd. I created a section in the main body of the CNN entry and put the link in. Lawyer2b 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Martin Savidge (Now with ABC/NBC News)

[4] is this true

Martin Savidge (Now with ABC News)

or

Martin Savidge (Now with NBC News)

--E-Bod 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jon Stewart and Crossfire

Even though I love Jon Steward, I really wonder if Crossfire was in fact cancelled becuase of Stewart's appearence? And if its true, i think this section would benefit from an actual reference. Anyone object if i remove it? Voyager3 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

CNN and its use of English

Has anyone noticed the small changes made by CNN? I put a quote in. Its subtitles contain lots of mistakes. I understand that written journalistic English shortens headlines, but do they have to use the same rule when talking?

andreasegde 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed this information from the Controversies section because there were no sources indicating that this is actually a controversy of any kind. Hal Raglan 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fair, but... Today, when watching their Steve Irwin video they were announcing coverage of 9/11 observence with a Flash display that ended: "Real-time coverage 9/11/2001. Monday." I know, I know WP:OR. But someone ought to have covered it. It's horrendous. --Siobhan Hansa 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Similar networks

I think the "replicated by other cable news services " piece is not relevant at all. The original BBC One channel was replicated/copied by BBC 2, ITV, and Channel Four. Is it really interesting?

If I see no reply I will sharpen the scissors. I state this so as not to be accused of vandalism.

andreasegde 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

bureaus

the bureaus listed here are different to those at the CNN site. CNN lists Lagos, Sydney, Istanbul, Denver in addition to the ones here, while it does not mention Amman, Athens, Detroit, Seattle, New Orleans, Bogota, Brussels, Nairobi, Rio or Sao Paulo. --Astrokey44 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Business aspects

Can anyone find financial information on CNN? Revenues, costs, profits? --LostLeviathan 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I know its revenues are about $810 million, thats about it. I posted the link on the CNN Headline News page if you're interested. Vikramsidhu 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "Cable News Network." Though I realize that "CNN" is more popular, the former is the official name of the network. Similarly, the Wikipedia article title of ABC is "American Broadcasting Company." Db099221 05:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I agree... --Adriaan90 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the "Current Shows" section

It seems that for some reason this section was deleted from the main article. I'm not sure if any vandalism issues played a role. But if someone could note why it happened, that would certainly clear up some confusion. 71.99.230.137 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC).

Thanks for noticing that. There's been some serious vandalism to this page over the last 24 hours or so, and other editors were putting it back together in bits and pieces. I've restored the entire article. --Aaron 02:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Current Shows should not list times

According to WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not a directory", this includes "TV/Radio Guides". Since it's unlikely that the Wikipedia entry for CNN is going to be updated every time any show has it's schedule changed, and since there are much better places to go to find show times, I'm going to delete the show times from the Current Shows section. Cbuhl79 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that on the "Current Shows" section, the "CNN Saturday Morning/CNN Sunday Morning" sentence was NOT revised. In other words, the schduled air time is still there. Wslupecki 22:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

CNN North America Blacked Out?

The CNN North America broadcast went off the air this morning at around 5am in Canada. It has been replaced by a CNN international broadcast. Is this a blackout put in on purpose due to a new event or could it have something to do with the US elections? If anyone can please inform me of what is being broadcast in the US on CNN? Im looking at thier site and i dont see anything worthy of a blackout, unless they are doing it on the site as well.

Curious One, Wednesday, Oct 25, 2006

Sometimes CNN switches between U.S. and international for technical or programmatical reasons. They often do it here (South Africa), at least. But yeah, I think this is what probably happened there. Also with breaking news or news conferences or whatever they'd switch to the channel which has the cameras at the event or whatever. --Adriaan90 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Evans & Novak

I'm just wondering why this show isn't listed under the former programs column.

Tsntana97 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)