Talk:CNN/Archive 5

Wikileaks scandal not even mentioned?!

As a first time reader of this page, I am astonished that wikileaks release of documentation of close contact and collusion between the DNC and CNN has not been mentioned in the article at all or perhaps removed quickly by a partisan if it has. This is well documented and widely reported.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Need I continue? Cpsoper (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe it has been moved to the subpage. Diffs: [7] [8]. I haven't checked if the removed parts were in fact added to the subpage. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

The controversies section here attempts to give a broad overview while specific controversies are listed on the sub page (linked from the section on this page). Cpsoper should check that page out before further comment. clpo13_(talk) 23:11, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, many commentators regard as damaging evidence of major collusion between the network and senior party officials, in for example preparing a question for the presidential debates beforehand. It surprises me that this is entirely relegated to a subpage. The contrast with other pages describing the biases of other media organisations is distinctively stark. For an ordinary reader to remain uninformed even of a precis of these matters on the main page appears selectively scotomatous. Cpsoper (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Covering it on this page is WP:UNDUE, since it gives it more weight than the numerous other controversies on the CNN controversies page - many of which got similar levels of coverage at their height. Given the prominence of CNN and the relative amounts of coverage it has gotten over the years (which makes it infeasible to cover ever controversy here as we could for a smaller organization), I feel we're better off summarizing the core long-term controversies over the network as a whole (eg. sustained accusations of bias, stuff we have lots of sources for covering a long period of time) rather than trying to touch on every individual event, controversy, or criticism (which would be, as the controversies page shows, too much to fit here.) I'm not convinced that that particular event is high-profile enough relative to their overall history to be worth giving it a unique highlight. --Aquillion (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I have to disagree. This has received ample coverage by The Washington Post [9][10][11] with a headline calling the scandal "journalistically horrifying", as well as by The New York Times [12], The Wall Street Journal [13], The Guardian [14], LA Times [15], Politico [16], Time [17], FOX [18], NY Post [19], Yahoo! [20], ABC news [21]... It also received international attention: Le Monde [22], El País [23], Deutsche Welle [24], O Estado de S. Paulo [25], etc. Snopes also ran a piece on it [26]. Perhaps a shorter mention would be satisfactory? We currently mention the conflict with the Trump administration, and as I've mentioned in the edit summary where I re-introduced the segment there should be some context to that. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been over a month since I responded to the revert. Since I was not contested I have added it back. Saturnalia0 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems inappropriate to me not to cover wikileaks here, it's repeatedly cited in references above as a serious indication of a journalistic flaw. Cpsoper (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The Donna Brazile stuff belongs in the article on Brazile. Here it's just UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

You'll have to do better than that with the sources provided above... If that doesn't show due weight, what does? Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

With regard to Brazile, it's simply that that belongs in her article. Are there STILL sources written about CNN and Brazile today? No. It's old news. It's outdated recentism. So yeah, UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

About Brazile maybe it belongs there also. The sources are clearly discussing CNN as well, please read them. About undo, you have got to be kidding. By that logic almost the entirety of this encyclopedia should be wiped. The thing is this isn't a news website, it's an encyclopedia, it doesn't report only on things that are currently in the news. The event in question has received the widest possible coverage by the most reputable possible sources, claiming undue solely because of the sources is ludicrous. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, you're ignoring the point. The Brazile story got coverage when it happened. Then no more. That shows this is clearly UNDUE. With regard to the newer stuff *maybe* the resignation is significant enough, but the rest is junk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The Brazile story is a controversy about Brazile, not a CNN controversy. A contributor did something she shouldn’t have and was immediately fired. If she wasn’t fired, or it was shown that CNN knew about this earlier, or this was shown to be common practice, that would be a CNN controversy. Objective3000 (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

List of CNN Programs

List of CNN Programs currently redirects here. I'd like to create a stand-alone page, and move the "Former programs" list off this page and onto that one. Any thoughts? Power~enwiki (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The page List of programs broadcast by CNN does exist; I've moved the "Former programs" table there. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN vs. memes

I'm sure many of us have seen the backlash after CNN discovered the real-life identity of the person who created the Trump wrestling meme that Trump himself then tweeted. (If you haven't seen the backlash to the article, search #CNNBlackmail on Twitter. I would describe it, but, frankly, it's hard to remain unbiased in this.) Should it be covered in this article and in the CNN controversies article? If not this one, should it still to covered in the controversies article? — Gestrid (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how this is a CNN controversy. More of a Trump controversy. But, I wouldn't bother with it there either as it would quickly fade away when something else happens. WP:UNDUE Objective3000 (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 I don't see it that way, and social media doesn't seem to, either. From what I've seen, most people are ignoring the fact that Trump tweeted the gif. They're mostly talking about the supposed threat of doxxing (Merriam-Webster definition) within the article I linked.

As an additional note, other news organizations are beginning to pick up the story.

— Gestrid (talk) 14:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

CNN is being accused of blackmail by anonymous trolls and Assange. Let's wait for the Congressional investigation before adding to an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would there be a Congressional investigation? And is that really the standard of inclusion for something like this in the CNN/ CNN controversies articles? It isn't quite that high elsewhere on Wikipedia. — Gestrid (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I was being sarcastic. There is no indication CNN has done anything untoward. And you can’t call a day old story a prolonged, public dispute. Objective3000 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this notable? A man in his 30s (or a 15 year old, nobody seems to agree) posted racist stuff online, CNN apparently threatened to post their real name if they continued, although it seems more like a generic legal message to me, and the internet collectively flipped their shit at the terrifying thought that actions (gasp!) actually have consequences. A few memers gettin' all riled up isn't exactly notable. That said, news outlets have covered this (including CNN itself) so I guess it could be notable. You're right by the way, it is hard to remain unbiased, but I probably side with the opposite person to you. This whole case is very weird. Nobody can even agree WHY they tracked down his identity. Was it because of the relatively inoffensive (if rather immature for the leader of the most powerful country on Earth to be tweeting out) 'wrestling' meme, or because of the other actually bigoted racist stuff he posted? Nobody seems to be sure... --213.123.3.22 (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If reliable sources are still talking about this in a few days then maybe we have something. If not then it is just another particulate in the endless toxic smog of non-notable nonsense used to obscure, deflect and distract from real issues. Either something will turn up to make this notable or (my guess) it won't. If it is becomes notable then it should get proportionate coverage only. It is not for us to generate, swell or amplify the smog ourselves. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

What if this would happen to other news outlets like Fox or RT? Would you include it as a controversy? This whole discussion is just enforcing your POV on this article. Please keep your political opinions away from wikipedia. 79.212.255.40 (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:AGF. You have have made an accusation against an editor with no evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

But enforcing your political opinion on this article is ok? The evidence is in your posts. 79.212.255.40 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

You have no idea what my political opinions are as I simply follow guidelines. I have been accused of being on opposite sides of the same issues several times. And, the crap you put on my talk page is not going to help you convince anyone of anything. Objective3000 (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• This is certainly a noteworthy and widely covered controversy that fits this article's controversy section since it is directly linked to CNN. It should be included. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Agreed Of course this should be included. Senator Ted Cruz stated the exacts laws CNN may have broken here. http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/05/ted-cruz-cnn-may-broken-law-doxxing-threat/. CNN threatened to publish someone's identity if they didn't comply with their wishes. If Fox News did this it would have been on the Fox News controversies before it happened. Let's work on getting the controversies and bias' summarized in the CNN lead as it is with Fox News.Aceruss (talk) 20:00, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop with the WP:AGF violations. I believe this is the third in two days. Objective3000 (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the paragraph could look something like this:

In July 2017, following President Trump's Twitter post of an edited video where he bodyslams Vince McMahon with a CNN logo over McMahon's face, CNN's Andrew Kaczynski published a story confirming he identified the Reddit user who originated Trump's video as a GIF, and who later posted an apology for creating the meme at the subreddit r/The_Donald. Kaczynski wrote that he was not going to disclose the identity of the user because he apologized for his Reddit activity, but said that CNN "reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change". Because of that, CNN was accused in social media of threatening and blackmailing the user, which resulted in the popular Twitter hashtag #CNNBlackmail. CNN responded in a statement, stating that they did not blackmail the user, would not publish his identity out of privacy concerns, and that he had apologized and deleted his account before Kaczynski contacted him.

Any suggestions of improvement are welcome. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Below are some sources talking about it or referring to it as a controversy. I'm not sure if it's notable enough for this article, probably not, but it certainly is for the CNN controversies one. Saturnalia0 (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Real Clear Politics - "Some political commenters are calling the move by the CNN investigative team extortion. Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Dave Rubin's accusation that CNN extorted a private citizen for legal behavior."[27]
• Boston Globe - "CNN is now facing backlash from Trump supporters for its recent story on the issue"[28]
• Washington Post - refers to it as a "controversy"[29]
• Fox News - "almost universal backlash" and "outrage"[30]
• Slate - "CNN Coverage Raises Eyebrows"[31]
• The Verge - "CNN is facing escalating backlash after publishing a controversial article on a Reddit user."[32]
• Newsweek - "The network found itself under siege and facing heavy criticism across the internet and on Twitter, where “CNNBlackmail” remains one of the country’s biggest trending topics."[33]
• Endadget - "CNNBlackmail hashtag had begun to trend on Twitter"[34]
• Buzzfeed - refers to it as a "controversial story"[35]

Yesterday, NPR made a large number of tweets including:A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. And: it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new government. Like this incident, social media went wild with posters demanding that NPR be defunded for making personal attacks against Trump. This NPR story was covered by more RS than this CNN story. NPR was simply tweeting the entirety of the Declaration of Independence in celebration of July 4th. Is this an NPR controversy? Of course not. We do not add a controversy section to articles every time there is a twitterfit. Objective3000 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to ask you to kindly champion that cause on the NPR wiki page then. As it seems that the stupid twitter fit ended up on the page anyway. Either, we remove that NPR entry, or we add the CNN doxxing controversy here. One is about general public misunderstanding a series of obviously politically pointed tweets. Another is about a company exerting blackmail tactics to ensure that they get their way... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#July_4th_Tweets_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence <-- Reference for the "Objective3000" impartial editor... Or I suppose we'll see how impartial they are. (135.23.185.89 (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC))

Yet another BLP vio. There have been no charges of blackmail, a serious crime. There is no complaining victim. These BLP vios must stop. This is exactly why the term blackmail must be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with that. This CNN-Reddit incident received just as much, if not more, coverage than the NPR thing. And it's hardly just a "twitterfit" (many are even saying it could be a crime). This is being covered by reliable sources of both sides of the spectrum. Even WashPo, NYT and Vox covered it. And few of them are defending CNN's actions. It's worthy of at least a brief paragraph here. Reminder that this is already included in r/The_Donald and Donald Trump on social media.NoMoreHeroes (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Many are even saying it could be a crime. That doesn’t belong here. People make all kinds of wild claims. The respected RS are not criticizing CNN. If it’s already included in r/The_Donald and Donald Trump on social media; good, that’s where it belongs. Objective3000 (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Vox criticized CNN. Is it not a reliable source? Regardless, it's still a story that attracted a lot of coverage. I see no reason why it should not be also included here or in the controversies article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Several RS (including, as NoMoreHeroes mentioned above, a few left-leaning news sites) are at least stating that others are criticizing CNN for the supposed threat. I would think it would at least merrit a section in CNN controversies. — Gestrid (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Of course some people are criticizing. Some people see conspiracies in their cereal. We really need to stop using weasel phrases like others are and many are saying. Such phrases may be used by some on the campaign trail; but do not belong even on a talk page in an encyclopedia as they border of BLP violations. My point is that the highly respected sources (WaPo with 47 Pulitzer Prizes, NYT with 122 Pulitzer Prizes) didn’t criticize. I don’t know anything about Vox; although I see they report on other papers getting Pulitzers. Twitter has a new “scandal” every day. There are sites that report on new oddball goofy “scandals” every day. This is an encyclopedia, not a scandal sheet. The fact that a bunch of anonymous trolls on social media hate CNN is not new; and we are not here to push their narrative. And if we did include it; we should do so accurately. That is, say that an anonymous person with a history of racist and anti-sematic posts was at the heart of the matter. And include the rational in respected sources that their is a large pro-Trump, anti-CNN contingent on social media that feeds such tweets. In any case, as you say, it is also covered here in two articles related to social media – where it fits, if anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Vox Media owns several other news organizations, including The Verge and Polygon. — Gestrid (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how that relates to anything. Should we also include the LATimes (44 Pulitzer Prizes) article which says: “It turns out the guy who posted the GIF also posted a list of Jews who work at CNN next to images of the Star of David.[36] He also used the N-word for black people, the F-word for gay people, the R-word for mentally disabled people. The LATimes goes on to quote a neo-Nazi site: “We are going to track down your parents,” the site wrote. “We are going to track down your siblings. We are going to track down your spouses. We are going to track down your children. Because hey, that’s what you guys get to do, right? We’re going to see how you like it when our reporters are hunting down your children.” This is from a highly reliable source. Should we add this for balance? I think when journalists are threatened by name, it would seem reasonable to show the anonymous statements against them.Objective3000 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The controversy is about CNN blackmailing the individual, not about him being racist and whatnot. It wasn't just social media users criticizing CNN, but also journalists and political commentators (see the links I posted, specially the RPC one). That being said, unless this develops into something else I don't think it should be included in this article, it's minor compared to the whole history of CNN and its other controversies. Mention it on CNN controversies only. Regarding how much emphasis should be put into this and whether some details should be discussed or not I think this can be discussed in the tp of whatever article this will be included at by the editors interested in including it. The discussion here I believe is, should it be included in this article or not? I don't believe it should (unless this develops into something larger, which I think is unlikely). Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your criminal accusation is a serious WP:BLP violation. I suggest you remove that part. Objective3000 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

What you or I think this is about is not relevant. What RS thinks it is about is what we use. The most respected RS go more deeply into the subject and its origins. Objective3000 (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The controversy over blackmail having occurred or not, that is. I'm not saying it occurred, CNN is not a living person and I haven't made an accusation nor added it to any article... Regarding what the controversy is about I agree with you, RSs determine it, I was saying that that seems to be what RSs are describing as the controversy - the blackmailing or threatening or whatever you want to call it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The reporter is a living person and has received threats against his family. We are better than this. Objective3000 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, I didn't raise any accusations nor edited any article regarding this matter, so I don't know what you're talking about. I'm saying that as far as I can tell that is the controversy RSs are talking about is. Furthermore, I guess death threats among other things is ultimately what the individual was threaded with by CNN, indirectly... - now that is my opinion. Saturnalia0 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure which part of the statement was a BLP violation, but, if a reporter is receiving death threats (which honestly isn't that uncommon for something like this on the Internet), it should probably be mentioned if this controversy got into either this article (as more than a passing mention) or the controversies article. Simply threatening someone within a Wikipedia article (which is a BLP violation) is not the same thing as saying someone got death threats about something reliably sourced within the article (which isn't a BLP violation, so long as it's reliably sourced). An example of the latter would be the Gamergate controversy. It isn't a BLP violation because it states that the person received death threats while reliably sourcing that fact. Simply stating that they received death threats or saying "I'm gonna kill you" (even without any credibility to the statement) is a BLP violation. — Gestrid (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Just an additional note: This has now received international coverage from the likes of BBC. The coverage does, however, seem to be from what appears to be a blog. (The only sign of that is in the URL.) In any case, it's still receiving national coverage. — Gestrid (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

"The controversy is about CNN blackmailing the individual, not about him being racist and whatnot." - why exactly? There was just as many sources pointing out that Trump was retweeting a gif from a racist and bigotted Reddit account as there have been about this fake "blackmailing" story. It makes just as much, if not more, sense to write "CNN pointed out that Trump was retweeting gifs created by a racist and bigoted Reddit account" (perhaps mentioning the previous instances where he has reposted stuff from racist websites and sources - like that "sheriff's badge" for example) than "CNN did not actually dox anybody".Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To be fair, the WH said (Why is the WH responding to a question about a meme, anyway?) that the President didn't get the gif from Reddit. It's quite possible he got it from somewhere else. Gifs and memes get reused all the time, most (about 99.9999% or less, probably) of the time without accreditation to wherever it came from. — Gestrid (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

References

I've removed an attempt to re-add this. The discussion here shows that the issue is contentious, and I agree with those who say that this is excessive weight. Coverage of this topic lasted a few days at most; there's zero indication of any lasting significance to the network's 37-year history. Maybe it mentions a brief mention at CNN controversies (maybe), but not on the main article. If someone wants to take it to RfC, fine — but this should not be re-added unless and until there is consensus to do so. Neutrality^talk 18:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Neutrality. This story doesn't need to be on this page in any way. I have no opinion on whether it should be on CNN controversies, it can be discussed on that talk page.. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2017

Someone has created a very partisan bio at the beginning of CNN's wikipedia page, and it is the first thing shown when googling CNN. It should be changed to a neutral intro instead of one reflecting any editor's political views. 2601:141:102:E950:507F:ED7:C4A9:5848 (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Accreditation

Should we start listing news media accreditation information on Wikipedia pages? With all the hoopla over fake news these days, I think people should know which are actually accredited and which are not. It's a fairly straight forward process. Here's a link: http://ask.metafilter.com/65063/What-counts-as-an-accredited-news-publicationSnackattack68 (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Description of Position in News

One of the great things about wikipedia is that the brief description under the title for almost all news networks and news/opinion sites generally describes the political position the site or network reports from. For instance Fox News' page shows it leans politically right; Vox news leans politically left.

These descriptions are helpful to the unknowing reader, who goes to wikipedia to understand basic facts regarding a source. Why is it these same descriptions are not given to CNN and NBC? Surely there is no controversy regarding the platform they are reporting from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cegelismt (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

How about for the first line in the article: "Cable News Network (CNN) is a politically left leaning American basic cable and satellite television news channel owned by the Turner Broadcasting System..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cegelismt (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Not that it’s relevant, but I don’t see anything on the Fox News article that says it leans right. In any case, this would require a fair number of reliable sources applying this characterization, which don’t exist.Objective3000 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Understand need for citations. Because there are too many to cite here, can you please list me a CNN article that reflects the votes of nearly half the country who elected this president? Denying that CNN is a left wing news outlet hurts no one but the people. This is an encyclopedia, lets report the facts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States THIS IS IN 2014 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.ead22485c25f

The description on the Fox News Page: "Fox News Channel has been accused of biased reporting, perpetuating conspiracy theories,[7][8][9] and promoting the Republican Party.[10][11][12]". Below are a few links showing that CNN does not have a neutral agenda, America deserves to know that this is not an objective news site.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.ead22485c25f http://www.businessinsider.com/what-your-preferred-news-outlet-says-about-your-political-ideology-2014-10 https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CNN http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/cnn-wolf-blitzer-barcelona-copycat-charlottesville_us_5996014be4b0e8cc855c5db6

This is not news, this is propaganda, and should be recognized as such. Again, if I am wrong, please find and supply evidence to the contrary,

Thank you, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cegelismt (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Cnn should let us add some truth

Your guess is a good as mine but whatever it is it is not helping us to improve the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Fake news websites (also referred to as hoax news websites)[1][2] are Internet websites that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect.[3][4][5] Unlike news satire, fake news websites deliberately seek to be perceived as legitimate and taken at face value, often for financial or political gain.[6][4] Such sites have promoted political falsehoods in Germany,[7][8] Indonesia and the Philippines,[9] Sweden,[10][11] Myanmar,[12] and the United States.[13][14] Many sites originate in, or are promoted by, Russia,[3][15] Macedonia,[16][17] Romania,[18] and the United States.[19][20] Gnisten888 (talk) 12:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC) This is text copied from Fake news website. What does this have to do with the CNN article? O3000 (talk) 13:09, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CNN. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080621203445/http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=250570b8-2555-4ac0-8fb7-a0431a321e0d&k=80562 to http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=250570b8-2555-4ac0-8fb7-a0431a321e0d&k=80562
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/04/12/cnn.crew.detained/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Opening?

I'm confused, I remember well that there was a brief paragraph on CNN criticism at the article's opening, that is until someone was, without resistance, able to completely remove it and use something like "it's too old" as an excuse. That was many, many months ago. Yet after all this time there is still no new paragraph added here? I've noticed at times that those who have mentioned it are then told to cite "reliable sources", I mean, this is supposed to summarise, there is no new information required since it should already be on Wikipedia, no? So what gives? Most news channels already have this, why is CNN an exception, especially given its controversial and questionable nature, just like most other news channels? Because honestly this just seems like the editors here are trying to whitewash. I mean, feel free to shape Wikipedia how you want, it's no wonder very few people actually take Wikipedia seriously, it's even why I've stopped editing here. 88.108.205.173 (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, do you have a specific suggestion for an addition? Also, you claim that you have stopped editing here, but your IP only has one edit from six years back on a video game. Please login if you are a former editor, or are you a sock? O3000 (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

As I remember before, and which is currently what you get for articles such as Fox News, a simple sentence over accusations of bias and accusations of promoting certain causes and the Democratic Party and such, nothing else really. I just find it ridiculous that still, this is something that has long existed for other articles on news channels, this article does not have this. In terms of my IP edits, I find it strange that you don't seem to know about dynamic IP addresses. 2.101.64.222 (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Bias vis-a-vis Fox News and CNN

In a brief look at the body of the page for Fox News, I noticed that there was mention of some accusations of conservative and/or Republican bias in its coverage. While this is not denied, I noticed that on CNN's Wikipedia page, the issue of bias was only mentioned toward the end of the page under Controversies. I would suggest, that to be more accurate, in light of the recent revelations regarding CNN's bias that have come to the surface during the 2016 election and the aftermath of the Trump administration, it is time to show allegations of bias front and centre, just as they are shown for Fow News.

Thank you.

Jack Shore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.168.41 (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Aye! — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

You'll need reliable sources for these revelations. O3000 (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there isn't a big mystery where they stand these days. (And the article doesn't include that.)Rja13ww33 (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum. If you have reliable sources for a change that you would like to suggest, this is the place. Otherwise, this section will be folded as it isn't constructive. O3000 (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to take out everything that has to do with "bias" in both because there is no real bias". User: ANDREWs13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2018

CNN is a left leaning, Democratic/liberal news media that also has been accused of making up news stories.

This information should be seen in the introduction section at the top of the page

When reading the Fox News introduction, it makes direct reference to Fox being accused of being Republican leaning and conservative right in the introduction. If we are going to keep things equal and fair without bias at Wikipedia then it needs to make similar statements regarding CNN in the introduction regarding it's political affiliation. 104.152.253.8 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: This has been discussed many times. Consensus is against such a change. O3000 (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@104.152.253.8: please refer to the discussion above about this topic. I submitted a proposed revision of the opening paragraphs here to more accurately reflect what sources say about CNN. Here is a link to the survey, where you can add your vote and comments: [37]. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just for the hell of it, name me a news organization that hasn't been accused of making shit up. No one gets it right all the time, no editorial procedure is flawless. The question is whether they try to get it right and whether they atone for mistakes. And, of course, how often they get it wrong in comparison to, you know, that other one, for instance. Drmies (talk) 02:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies...for grins, read Pew Research Center's Journalism & Media. And you'll love this from Science News: But despite this similar-stripe clumping, Fox News and The New York Times are relatively close to each other,suggesting that, as far as quoting patterns go, these two mainstream outlets aren’t all that different. ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on Lede Revision Change

The following discussion 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.

---

Should the lede be revised? Please see the proposed statement and the ongoing survey (below the proposed statement) here: Talk:CNN#Lede_Revision_Proposal

The survey already has some votes. Please vote there. Thanks.Rja13ww33 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

This RfC is not correctly formatted and the suggestion that there are votes before the RfC existed is not proper. Also, "Media, the arts, and architecture" isn't the correct category. I suggest you delete and restart according to RfC procedures. O3000 (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll do it if others suggest it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It's rare but I actually agree with O3000 on this one, Rja13ww33. Malformed RfCs don't work well. Delete, and let's see what local consensus brings. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

So, after ten !votes, you want a Mulligan? Kind of like asking to redo your drive off the first tee while on the back nine. O3000 (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to look at the time stamps. 🤔 ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Does nine (now 12) make any difference to my point? O3000 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Y'all can support whatever you want to support...makes zero difference to me either way. I know what I know. If there is overwhelming consensus that CNN is not left-leaning, I will respect the result and move on. Quite frankly, it doesn't change my life either way. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:18, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Like I said elsewhere in this: I'm not real big on “jury shopping” or re-forming the RFC once a consensus has been reached. I'll consider it once voting seems to have stopped. (And I see the overall basis for rejection.) But my instinct is against it.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2018

CNN has been widely described as having biased reporting in favor of the Democratic Party, Hilary Clinton and Liberal causes. 199.46.188.15 (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion can be found above at Talk:CNN#Left-leaning_Liberal_Bias. O3000 (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@199.46.188.15: Absolutely correct. Create an account and watch this page for future discussions regarding these facts. Mr. Daniel Plainview (talk) 15:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE

Left wing bias

OP indeffed for forging a post O3000 (talk and then for being a socik. Doug Weller talk 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
'Bout time this bloody page said about CNN' s cowardly bias. The harvard study said that 52 % of trump coverage of trump was negative: fair and balance. This figure is over 80% for BIASED CNN. This critism should be in the 4th para of the intro. NOW!!! Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC) What it is, is that I believe this is a legitimate argumemt. I am here to contribute constructively. Don't #NoPlatform me. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Please read Talk:CNN#Left-leaning_Liberal_Bias section above. --McSly (talk) 20:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Regardless of that the study still shows the bias. I am fed up of the gagging order placed on this page regarding criticism. Kim Jong Un would be proud to have such a flattering page. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC) There was a lengthy discussion. That is hardly gagging. And no, as has been discussed, the study does not show bias. To reopen the discussion, you would need new reliable secondary sources. WP:IRS O3000 (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC) 'The study shows no bias' Also, the world is flat and Michael Jackson is still alive. I've seen it all before:The left ignoring evidence when it suits them. Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 21:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC) I think the best advice I can offer you here is to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Ok Canyoutietheminaknot (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hidden criticism section vs. Excessive, front-paged criticism of Fox News

Compare how the criticism section of this page is handled as compared to the one on the Fox News page. The criticism is limited to a single incident, that being essentially one bit of information revealed by Wikileaks, and the entire rest of it, including things like what James O'Keefe revealed about their editorial policies, is completely concealed. Either frontpage the criticisms of both, or marginalize the criticisms of both by putting them in separate articles. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Different articles are different. You wouldn’t expect the articles on Oprah Winfrey and Jack Ruby to be similar just because they are both about people. I’m not trying to assign any moral valuation here. Just saying that you need to look at each subject independently and evaluate which parts of the whole are more important article by article. WP:OTHERCONTENT O3000 (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I support OP. Clearly the CNN article is not unbiased on its criticism section compared to Fox News, given the fact that CNN has gone through a big chunk of controversies since 2015, regarding excessive coverage of now President Trump and its bias towards conservatism in general. I will look forward into researching more about this. --Bankster (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Oprah Winfrey and Jack Ruby have essentially nothing to do with each other. CNN and Fox are both cable news stations who are the subject of controversial coverage and analysis and who play a key role in how people perceive politics and the world. A page dedicated to one should not be overly critical in tone if the opposite page is not. 24.185.76.170 (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia biased?

Not a forum, this is not exciting. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
When I suggested to my 14-year old son that he might enjoy learning how to edit Wikipedia articles, his response was "Why bother, they are just another left-wing media outlet". After reading the debate above (in this talk section), I can see his point. Before I attempt to add a section to the Wikipedia CNN article entitled "Accusations Of Liberal Bias", I want to be certain that I am not wasting my time. If this new section only contains quotes with reputable reference links, is there any reason that it will be immediately deleted by Wikipedia editors who have more "points" than myself (I am new)? Even though I personally think that Trump is a jackass and the worst president we have ever had, I would rather that my son has an opinion that I disagree with, instead of having no opinion at all. Please reply to let me know if attempting to create this new section in the CNN article is a waste of my time. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC) At this moment, the word ‘’bias’’ shows up on this talk page 154 times. (Well, now 155.) Which is to say this has been discussed at great length. The archives contain more discussions. Likely the best you can find is here. The problem is that Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, and they don’t claim bias. The claims of bias come from the President (who is prolific in criticisms) and unreliable sources, or at least unreliable for this characterization. O3000 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) If I was to only include quotes from reliable secondary sources, is there any reason that a new section entitled "Accusations Of Liberal Bias" would be deleted? MySonLikesTrump (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC) See the article: CNN controversies. O3000 (talk) 15:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) The article you suggested is not nearly as prevalent as the main CNN article, which currently does not contain one instance of the words "bias", "liberal", or "left". This is decidedly unfair and biased on the part of Wikipedia, and causes Wikipedia to lose credibility. Once again: If I was to only include quotes from reliable secondary sources, is there any reason that a new section entitled "Accusations Of Liberal Bias" would be deleted from the main CNN article (other than outright unfair censorship)? MySonLikesTrump (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Well, considering that this has been discussed in a few sections above without gaining consensus, I should think that adding such a section would be against consensus and considered disruptive. This isn’t “censorship”. It’s the consensus of the editors based on our guidelines. O3000 (talk) 18:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC) That is why I am discussing it here before adding the section. As I mentioned, I am a new Wikipedia user. What exactly is the "guideline" that precludes this section from being added, if it only include quotes from reliable secondary sources? It is certainly relevant, and similar observations are allowed in articles for other news channels. Why is this type of observation not allowed for the CNN article? Is there a reason that the words "bias", "liberal", and "left" are not allowed in the CNN article; even though the words "bias", "conservative" and "right" are allowed in articles for other news channels, and even though there are reliable secondary sources to prove that the words "bias", "liberal", and "left" certainly apply to CNN? The fact that this issue has been discussed before does not justify the inequality that appears to be present here. Please provide the specific "guideline" that causes the CNN article to be clearly treated differently than the articles for other news channels. If you have reliable secondary sources, you can discuss them here. But, it would be appreciated if you didn't repeat sources already rejected as unreliable. O3000 (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you for that consideration. Could you please list the sources already rejected as unreliable, so I can abide by your request and not repeat them? MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC) These are the only sources that I saw discussed on this page. Did I miss any? https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.78b310243db7 https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/partisanship-and-cable-news-audiences/ MySonLikesTrump (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2018 (UTC) You'll need to do the work for yourself. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Here are the results of a brief search for "CNN bias". I tried not to duplicate any sites already mentioned on this Talk page. I don't think anyone can claim that gallup.com and statista.com are unreliable: If you need more, then I can list at least 10 more reliable sites by searching for "CNN liberal" and "CNN left". However, the 6 sites above provide more than enough accurate quotes to justify the "Accusations Of Liberal Bias" section that I an proposing. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Here's 5 more: Sources If someone issued a press release informing the public that Wikipedia deems all 20 websites referenced on this talk page to be "unreliable" (including Gallup.com), and that Wikipedia refuses to allow the the words "bias", "liberal", or "left" to appear in the CNN article, I think the public perception would not benefit Wikipedia's credibility. I am not proposing that this new section expresses any judgement. The "accusations" of CNN having a liberal bias are extremely relevant, and very well-known. If you want Wikipedia to present an accurate representation of CNN, you should not exclude this important aspect, because its exclusion causes far more harm to Wikipedia's credibility than its inclusion. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Oh please, this is becoming an obsession with you. You cannot seriously believe that some of your "accurate quotes", such as Fox New etc; are reliable sources. The so-called "exclusion" causes no harm at all to "Wikipedia's credibility", only shows your own bias. David J Johnson (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Gallup: A poll of what Americans think is not an indication of bias. Even if it were, that poll does not say that CNN is biased. Statista: Again, polls cannot show bias, only perceived bias. And that poll is behind a paywall, so I don’t really know what it says. Boston Herald: This is an editorial, which only shows the opinion of the editorial board and is not considered reliable for facts. It’s also written in a manner that is highly biased itself. Also, I see no mention of CNN as it basically says all national media is biased. Perhaps it is behind the paywall. Student News Daily: I can find no info about this other than it’s written for high school students. There is no mention of it in WP:RS/N. pudding.cool: Again, I can find no info about this site and it is not in with RS/N archives. Also, it doesn’t appear to say CNN is biased. Research Gate is a social networking site with user generated content. While it may be better than most social sites, the two refs I found at RS/N did not consider it reliable for facts. I didn’t see where it said CNN was biased anyhow. Fox: Tucker Carlson actually said on Fox a couple weeks ago that all other sources are unreliable and to only listen to Fox. O3000 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I have to add that your inclusion of the Snopes article is quite bothersome. The article is about a claim that “CNN Staged Muslim Protests After London Attack”. This is clearly a nutcase, conspiracy theory. Further, Snopes marked it False. So, how is a false story about CNN created by conspiracy theorists a sign that CNN is biased? O3000 (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC) CLOSING ARGUMENT: The Wikipedia article for Fox News contains 23 occurrences of the word "bias", and 35 occurrences of the word "conservative". The article for CNN contains 0 occurrences of the word "bias", and 0 occurrences of the word "liberal". The Fox News article begins by stating "Fox News Channel has been widely described as having biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party." No one can deny that the opposite statement is also true for CNN, but you refuse to put it on the CNN article. The key phrase is "widely described". The comments and links in this talk section prove beyond a doubt that CNN bias is "widely described". The editors' adamant opposition to the universally accepted observation that CNN is left leaning proves, beyond any doubt, that Wikipedia is extremely biased towards the left. My son was right, this was a pointless exercise. It is very ironic that, as I stated at the beginning of this correspondence, I am actually a liberal who hates Trump. However, I hate censorship and unfairness in the media even more. Therefore, I will answer the question that was posed in the original Topic of my comments: YES, WIKIPEDIA IS EXTREMELY BIASED. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC) When you type CNN bias into Google, it will list all pages that contain either the word CNN or the word bias. The page could say CNN is not biased, or not mention CNN or bias at all, as was true with many of your hits. You can’t just Google something and then post a list without reading the pages. Please realize that this is an encyclopedia and must be based on reliable sources as per: WP:IRS. Otherwise, this is an enormous waste of time. As this is your closing argument, I wish you good luck in your further endeavors. O3000 (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC) I just noticed that you removed the 11 links that I posted to prove my point. Wow. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) You have destroyed your own comments by posting in caps and bold. That is considered shouting and has no place in any discussion. David J Johnson (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) You said "If you have reliable secondary sources, you can discuss them here". I took the time to find 11 links (which were not in caps and bold), and you deleted them. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Out of about 50 lines, I placed two short headings in caps and bold. That is not shouting. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) No, I did not remove them. I put them in a box labeled "Sources" so your text would be easier to follow. Click on Show in the box and the will appear. O3000 (talk) 21:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC) When you click the links (without taking any other action), nothing happens. That makes it difficult to see the websites that I wanted to show. Please revert the links back to how I originally posted them, as clickable links. MySonLikesTrump (talk) There is a box below the refs with the word Sources on the left and Show on the right. The editors here knows how it works. Click Show and you will see clickable links in an easy to use table. O3000 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Fully agree with the closing argument as set out above. The overwhelming bias at Wikipedia makes the site rather similar to the latest work of a left-wing polemic than to Encyclopædia Britannica. Trying to correct this bias is pointless, since you'll have to deal with activist editors who, seemingly, have nothing better to do than to spend/waste many hours a day just to defend Wikipedia's current bias. Sad. Reedseque (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Fox News has "is conservative"-section in lead, so why no "is liberal"-section here?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The proof for CNN's liberal/left-wing bias can easily be provided. Reedseque (talk) 00:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Provide reliable sources that say CNN is liberal. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC) They are already provided on this talk page: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/ https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/?utm_term=.78b310243db7 https://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-donald-trumps-first-100-days/ http://www.pewresearch.org/2009/10/30/partisanship-and-cable-news-audiences/ By the way, in the article about Fox News CNN is actually one of the sources for the claim that Fox News is conservative. Talking about reliable sources. Reedseque (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC) The only sources that say that CNN is liberal or has a "left-wing bias" are ones that are not reliable (mediabiasfactcheck.com, allsides.com). We can't use them, and even if we did, we can't use Wikipedia's voice to state something about which there is disagreement in reliable sources. Any mention of CNN being "liberal" would need to be attributed if it could be shown to meet WP:DUEWEIGHT. It would not be worthy of inclusion in the lead.- MrX 🖋 11:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Mediabiasfactcheck relies partly on the Pew Study. That study does NOT claim that CNN is biased. It says that most stories about Trump were negative. That does not indicate bias. Mediabiasfactcheck also says CNN usually uses reliable sources and says that failed fact checks were almost exclusively from guests on their numerous talk shows and not from the reporting of actual news, which tends to be factual. AllSides originally gave CNN a rating of Center. However, they have now dropped any rating of CNN News channel and are only rating the web site. The WaPo article is also about the Pew study. Again, the Pew Study does not claim that CNN is biased. The shorensteincenter report states that most stories about Trump are negative. It also says that the number of negative stories about Bill Clinton’s presidency outnumbered the number of positive stories in all 32 quarters of Clinton’s time in office. The lengthy article does NOT claim that CNN is biased. The Pewreasearch link is the third reference to the same study. It does not claim bias.O3000 (talk) 11:58, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Notice that when the topic comes to labeling Fox News as Conservative, CNN is considered a "reliable source" to cite, but yet when the topic comes to labeling CNN as liberal, all of a sudden every possible effort is made to vet and fight any possible reference. This completely unsymmetrical standard is another example of the subconscious biases that create these *extremely* slanted articles.100.35.112.60 (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2018 (UTC) Yup. Maybe someone should add a bias-section in the lead of to the article about Wikipedia itself as well :-). Reedseque (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC) WP is built upon consensus. Consider that snarky responses, lack of good faith, hyperbole, and dramatic claims without reliable sources will not convince other editors. O3000 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC) CNN is a "reliable source" for the political colour of Fox News, but the sources provided above ar not for CNN's political colour. In such a world, only a fool would keep assuming good faith. Cheers, Reedseque (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC) I may be a fool (I admit such on my user page), but I know that this is the CNN article. If you wish to discuss sources for the Fox article, go to the Fox article. O3000 (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)