Talk:CNN/Archive 8

Controversies

There is an entire article on CNN bias and problems: CNN controversies. Why is this not discussed and linked to? The Foxnews equivalent has a whole section on this topic in its main article. Sounds like more pro-liberal wiki bias to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:6047:EDE6:EF27:6EC3 (talk) 22:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCONTENT. Discuss CNN here. Discuss Fox on the Fox article. O3000 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I am discussing CNN here. I'll discuss anything I want anywhere I want. @Objective3000: really lame attempt by you to totally avoid the issue. Thanks for proving my point that this CNN article is being WP:CENSORED via leaving things out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:6047:EDE6:EF27:6EC3 (talk)

I'd just like to note that the CNN controversies article is already linked to from this one so I'm not sure what more our anonymous friend is asking for. Maybe the link could be a little more obvious but I'm not seeing any issue here that even begins to justify such a grandiose complaint of bias. Nothing is being "left out" --DanielRigal (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

"a little more obvious" is a massive understatement. It's sub linked under "criticism". Not to mention it's glossed over with no massive section of it's own like in foxnews. So much for fair and equal treatment of topics on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:A0A8:D267:DE91:B9D5 (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Bias and constant begging from editors to change CNN's lead paragraph

I was kinda surprised to see there's no controversy part in this article. I looked up this article's talk archives and realized so many IPs and editors want to edit it too. And every single time their claims are refuted. There was one discussion that was very long that I couldn't keep up. So in all fairness, I would really like a summary on how to correctly put the alleged phrase that "CNN is an American left-wing liberal news-based channel" without running into problems. That way, IPs and other editors will understand why we don't add CNN's "controversies". RareButterflyDoors (talk) 01:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you had read these past discussions, you would have realized that no such description should be appearing in the lead of the article, as it is inappropriate and biased. ValarianB (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

See CNN_controversies. O3000 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

That is because it is Wikipedia's bias is that bias only applies to so-called 'right-wing' sources. 47.134.99.205 (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2020 (UTC) John Qick

Should create a talk page FAQ like many controversial articles have, especially where the same questions keep coming up. ɱ (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Ɱ. Because of this notion that CNN is "fake news" and stuff like that, I feel that this article is destined to keep getting the same questions over and over and over again. RareButterflyDoors (talk) 01:21, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that CNN should say that it is a left wing news network. Fox News has “right wing news network” on its page. CNN isn’t exactly non-biased. Just saying Augustaman (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• @ValarianB: see a few sections below. The foxnews and cnn article are not treated equally. There is clear pro liberal wiki bias going on here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5802:AA00:6047:EDE6:EF27:6EC3 (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

request for edit of the CNN wikipedia page for stating that 'The network has also been criticized for its efforts to be nonpartisan, which have led to accusations of false balance'. This statement has been debunked by several incidents in the past years. It is an obvious fact that CNN is a partisan network that support particular political viewpoints and is biased toward particular individual. Therefore, I humbly ask Wikipedia for my request to change the statement into correct form. 222.107.38.86 (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. O3000 (talk) 11:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Epoch Times is far-right, isn't CNN far-left?

Does only the far-right exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogoio (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The far left certainly does exist. We have many, many articles about it. This isn't one of them because CNN is not far left. It is not even close to being far left. The workers do not own the means of production at CNN. CNN is a private company owned by Warner Media which is owned by AT&T. It really is Capitalism all the way up and down at CNN, and you know that the far-left doesn't like? That's right, Capitalism! Any discussion of the far left is completely off-topic for this article and this talk page. I recommend reading up on what the actual far-left, left and center-left are, rather than just assuming that anything to the left of yourself must all be far-left and all be the same. You probably won't agree with any of it but at least you will know what the words mean. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ec... Of course, the far-left exists, and we don't use such sources here. CNN is center-left by American standards, which are pretty naive because we ignore the Overton window and how people can slide to the left or right without realizing it, thus warping their perceptions. Europeans, who are the real experts on the left-right political spectrum issues, consider CNN and the Democratic Party slightly right-wing. That's because American conservatives have moved very far to the right, especially under Trump (he has brought extremely right-wing sources into prominence), thus making them think that centrist sources have become left and mildly left-wing sources have become far-left sources. That is a perceptual and subjective illusion. CNN has not moved left and remains close to the center. Ad Fontes Media bias chart rates it slightly left.[1] Check it out on the chart.[2] Note that CNN, like Fox News, is located in two places on the chart. -- Valjean (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

also ec... I am old enough to remember the Daily Worker, which folded into the People's World. That recent iteration seems to be still teetering along with an online presence and a staff of volunteers. Workers, means of production, and so on. In the US, that kind of left-wing publication struggles to find much of an audience, and is not on topic in this article or its talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN has a liberal leaning

CNN has a liberal leaning, we would be amiss not to include this in its description. There is not one reference to CNN’s bias or issues caused by its bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:43C7:4238:7086:98A1:1E27:8F9 (talk) 05:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning allegations of bias in lead?

As the lead did not address notable allegations of bias against CNN, I added this sentence:

CNN has faced allegations of political bias, with Democrats more likely to hold favourable views of the network than Republicans.

Despite being sourced, my edit was reverted by @Snooganssnoogans:, whose edit summary reads “the misperceptions of people dont belong in the lead. we dont say that donald trump won the 2020 election in the 2020 election just because these same ppl who think cnn is biased also think he won the election” (Note that Trump’s article lead does point out that he rejected the election outcome). This is despite the fact that the lead is intended to summarise sourced and notable content, which this is, and which facts weren’t addressed in the edit summary. So far as I can see, this is a violation of WP:POVPUSHING. Is anyone willing to comment for or against such a change to the lead? thorpewilliam (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

References

An article on viewership has no bearing on bias. If you search the archives of this page at the top of this page, you will see that this has been discussed innumerable times. O3000 (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: This is not about viewership per se, i.e. whether those of one party affiliation watch the network more than others; it's about favourability or unfavourability toward the network. It is merely to summarise the basis upon which allegations of political bias largely are founded. One can click the hyperlink to read about this more in depth; the same fact as it relates to allegations of partisanship is discussed there. thorpewilliam (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I have read the Pew study many, many times. And yes, the basis of many claims of bias are founded on bias among those making such claims -- as well as misinterpretation of statistics. Please look at the archives of this talk page so we don't have to relitigate this discussion once again. O3000 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Biased as they may be, that doesn't negate the fact being stated nor their relevance to Wikipedia. The requirement is that the source itself is reliable, which it is. Where am I wrong? thorpewilliam (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

All the article says about CNN is that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate CNN favorably. The article does not say that CNN is biased. O3000 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Perceptions of bias by parts of the public does not belong in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans: They do in other articles. If such allegations are widespread, they are notable. However, I agree that a more appropriate source could be used to back this, though this one still serves to summarise. Perceptions of bias are important to mention, and you've defended their inclusion elsewhere. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The editor "Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d" (who was created on 31 August 2020 and showed immediate familiarity with WP editing) just restored the allegations of bias to the lead. The editor added a report on the "tone" of reporting of various candidates to support the WP:SYNTH claim that CNN is biased against conservatives. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that this type of material belongs in the lead section - it seems like undue weight. It also rather sloppily conflates perceptions by audience segments with actual bias. Perhaps some content in the body would be appropriate, depending on sourcing and wording. Neutrality^talk 22:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

IIRC, the Pew report that this source mentions and has been mentioned many times on this TP, states in its conclusion that the data does not indicate bias. The report is mostly about general mistrust of news organizations. O3000 (talk) 22:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Neutrality: Another source could do the same. My primary concern is that the lead fails to address allegations of political bias, only referring to allegations of false balance. This seems quite unusual. thorpewilliam (talk) 00:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The onus is on you to support through reliable sources any change that you are suggesting. The current text is well cited. O3000 (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Objective3000: Would these suffice, if I were to instate a revised version of my original edit with or without the reference to Pew Research? 1 ("And it’s not only opinion shows. All day long, CNN and MSNBC play up negative stories about the president while Fox plays them down. And, all day long, Fox plays up good news about the president while CNN and MSNBC play it down — or ignore such stories altogether."), 2 ("CNN’s heavily promoted Democratic debate on Tuesday comes on the same day as a second batch of undercover recordings is putting an emphasis on the network’s political bias.") (I will note here that Fox is CNN's arch competitor), 3 ("Among Republicans and those who lean Republican, CNN was considered the most biased news organisation, with a -87 bias rating. Meanwhile, Democrats and those who lean Democratic gave CNN a +29."), 4 ("Results of the content analysis found that both Fox News and CNN contain political bias. Both objectively and subjectively, the networks consistently make negative comments on the members and policies of the other party and have polar opposite opinions of President Donald Trump.") Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 09:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Again, the primary intent is to discuss allegations of bias, which are themselves important, less so whether or not they're true. thorpewilliam (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The first link is an opinion piece, which is unsuitable for statements of fact. The second is to Fox News, which isn't widely accepted as a reliable source for US politics. The third is just referencing more opinion polling. The fourth is a dissertation, which isn't generally considered a good source, especially not for contentious claims; they generally lack the level of peer review accorded to actual papers. None of the sources you're citing indicate that the "allegations of bias" you're trying to put in the lead are important. And all the sources you're citing only mention CNN in passing, often as a point of comparison to Fox. This is important because the polling you're citing indicates that the American right generally distrusts all news sources except Fox or a small bubble of more fringe-y alternatives (The big difference is that while no other source comes close to rivaling Fox News’ appeal to Republicans, a number of sources other than CNN are also highly trusted and frequently used by Democrats); this means that the fact that they take issue with CNN isn't particularly noteworthy or important, since they take issue with any news source that doesn't toe their ideological line. In other words, it's a story about the right-wing media landscape and the extremely narrow window of what's acceptable within it, not a story about CNN specifically. --Aquillion (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Since when was Fox News not considered a reliable source? Anyways, points taken. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@Aquillion:Also, on the topic of opinion articles, every single source referenced regarding CNN's allegations of false balance goes to an opinion or commentary article. thorpewilliam (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2020

If you are going to call Fox news a conservative news agency you need to call CNN a liberal or left wing news agency 2600:1700:DFE1:6E90:9973:C687:3C9F:302E (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done This has already been discussed. Also - WP:WHATABOUT.--Renat (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Sandman Lawsuit

What is wrong with the echo chamber Orwellian revisionists? From CNN's very own web site: https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/us/cnn-sandmann-lawsuit/index.html

..and Stalin erased people from photos too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.33.183 (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2020

Italic text

Second to last paragraph on intro page (talks about ratings, rating from 2019, needs to be updated with current ratings. Here's a link to their current https://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2020/12/02/cnn-smashes-ratings-records-in-november-has-its-most-watched-month-ever/ Bec23023 (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, preferably with a secondary source. The source cited its own press release with source of the figures not declared. Neilsen? or what other organisation had made the ratings? – robertsky (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

cstiker05's additions

I reverted Cstiker05's first addition relating to bias in the lead, as it did not cite any reliable source and was based on the idea that articles on similar topics must describe them in similar (or balanced) ways. That is not the case. We write about subjects based on the reliable sourcing for that subject, not other subjects. This subsequent edit seems based on the same reasoning, adding related content likewise based on insufficient sources (see WP:RSP for entries on NY Post and Fox on politics). Not reverting due to restrictions on this page. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Headquarters

CNN officially lists the headquarters of CNN as CNN Center in Atlanta, Georgia. This is being changed on this and other articles to 10 Hudson Yards, New York City. While New York does host a CNN bureau (as does Washington and numerous other cities throughout the US and the world), this is not where CNN is headquartered. I have reverted this article back to Atlanta and included three citations.

Similarly, a section was included to imply that all major broadcasting was out of New York, and that Atlanta did nothing but weekend broadcasting. This was cited, however, the citations were contradictory to the information published in the Wikipedia article. Moreover, the section appeared to only have been inserted to contradict the fact that CNN is in fact headquartered in Atlanta.

Should we add CNN's controversies to this article?

I feel like since the controversies of other news channels/publications are connected to their respective articles, we should do that to this article. Chimichangazzz (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2020 (UTC)Chimichangazzz

There was no consensus to remove this section in the first place, not even a discussion. After two reverts of this were reverted, somehow a consensus is now required to re-include this? Seriously @Objective3000? Mellk (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to reintroduce a controversy section. The bias of the articles on this website are incredible. Fox News’s article is filled with multiple sections detailing its controversies whereas this article has none. The article CNN controversies isn’t even linked here anymore, most likely to reduce visibility. Sanger is 100% correct in his feelings about this website. CatcherStorm ^talk 15:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I invite you to show us what you want to add before you add it, because the article CNN is currently subject to discretionary sanctions. All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). Fox News article — WP:WHATABOUTX.--Renat (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I would normally suggest with the seemingly simplest and most logical answer to your question and say just add the CNN controversies page either linked or in full section - but I just read through it. It's absolutely littered with things like " in 2011 CNN anchor on this date burned a Republican with a mildly aggressive joke." Or "in 201 Trump made a false, completely unfounded claim that has definitely been proven to be a 100% made up CONSPIRACY THEORY fact checked by independent upstanding organizations who have no proven connection to CNN like WaPo or Politifact."

I mean seriously guys. Come on. You even still have claims in these articles that the Russian collusion hoax was still legitimate. Actually, as of today President Trump has fully unsealed the FBI investigations that provably show that the Steele Dossier was in fact a collusion by the Obama admin and Hillary Clinton to take the public's attention off of her deleted Emails scandal. It's all in the declassified investigation reports.

Other than that, we can just cut right to the chase and thru the BS "my team vs your team" nonsense and be willing to call out when your political party makes a mistake or commits a scandal. 2020 alone could fill 5 pages of CNN 'alleged scandals' - from the berating of Trump literally around the clock, to the footage obtained by Project Veritas listening to their weekly meetings where they've laid out plots to swing public perception to the side of the democrats, to constantly labeling the race riots of 2020 which caused over $2 Billion in damage and over 24 (up to 48 ) deaths, as "mostly peaceful" all while the mayhem unfolded on live tv. You could also include the sexist and racist comments by Don Lemon that falsely claimed that white men are the most dangerous demographic in the country.

I can go into detail with a slew of additional examples in the event you are actually interested in introducing a fair and balanced reporting of the party with who's public declarations most align with the staff of this and the other major big tech and information gathering websites and even the ones with opinions that yourselves and the other sites despise. I for one would be interested in the complete picture for once, which for the past 5 years has been brutally obstructed by biasness and partisanship.

Thanks. I cautiously and perhaps naively look forward to an effort to eliminate the gross imbalances being displayed. Yashamaga (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notaforum aka keep the ranting to a miniumum to maximize productivity. With that out of the way, there should be consistency in how similar articles are presented to readers. Msnbc, fox news and cnn have separate controversy articles yet only one does not retain an article section, instead hiding it as a link in a Trump sub-section. Perhaps some harmonization would go a long way to reducing perceived bias. Slywriter (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

Please add 'American Liberal' (with link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_in_the_United_States)

to the description of CNN as a news network in the first sentence, after the first use of word 'multinational', to fit the same pattern across Wikipedia used for sites like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Examiner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News

Additionally, please add a paragraph regarding bias, similar to:

"Fox News has been described as practicing biased reporting in favor of the Republican Party, its politicians, and conservative causes while portraying the Democratic Party in a negative light.[19][20][21][22] Critics have cited the channel as detrimental to the integrity of news overall.[23][24] Fox News' official position is that news reporting operates independently of its opinion and commentary programming, and have denied bias in news reporting, although former employees have stated that Fox ordered them to "slant the news in favor of conservatives".[25] During the presidency of Donald Trump, observers said there is a pronounced tendency of the Fox News Channel to serve as a "mouthpiece" for the administration, providing "propaganda" and a "feedback loop" for Trump, with scholars suggesting that the channel came to resemble a form of state TV.[26][27]"

for parity regarding the page, in order to establish a clear picture of the media outlet (just as the paragraph above provides a clear picture of Fox). Wikipedia should be an arbiter of truth above all else, which includes attempting to remove lies of omission or disingenuous description of a given topic. It is a fact that CNN sides with the political opinions held to much greater degrees (from a policy standpoint) within the Democratic party of the United States, particular those who are deemed 'progressives'. It is important that we provide clarity to all readers of Wikipedia, as it should act as an Encyclopedia providing clarity across the Internet.

Thank you for your consideration. 2601:18D:8D80:9B90:EDFF:3F63:A9D2:AD8C (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done There is no "pattern" for this. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--Renat (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Deceptively edited videos and disinformation 216.105.212.252 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Block evasion by Alfred the Lesser.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mention controversies in the lead, such as referring to a street full of burning cars during a riot as a fiery but mostly peaceful protest. Looking at the article on Fox News compared to Wikipedia's article on CNN, there is clear left wing bias, despite CNN and Fox News essentially being mirrors of each other. Prins van Oranje 12:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC) It is not a major component of CNN's history. Not lead-worthy. ValarianB (talk) 14:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC) "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether or not the same or similar content exists or is formatted similarly in some other page; this is because there is nothing stopping anyone from editing or creating any article." WP:OTHERCONTENT.--Renat 14:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Okay, then I will fix this article if I can find reliable sources. Prins van Oranje 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Sourcing is not relevant to the issue. The sources are what supports the existence of the CNN controversies article. ValarianB (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Inequitable mention of bias

WP:NOTAFORUM
The following is a closed discussion. Please do not modify it.
Most viewers of the big three American cables news networks would agree that all three have significant, obvious biases. All three are overwhelmingly corporatist, two are left wing, one is right wing. Why is it that this article makes zero reference to the leftward slant of CNN, let alone the leftward slant of the commentators. The word "bias" appears three times on this page (all of which are in the titles of references, not in the article.) The Fox News article, however, uses the word a total of 30 times. Fox News is super bias, no doubt. But to wash the CNN page of references to this clear fact is either ignorance, or willful dishonesty. I don't think most editors here are in the latter category. Hopefully this isn't scrubbed from the page before someone can provide a reasonable response. 2601:18F:4101:4830:55AF:FC89:E9EF:1B8 (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Also, if someone is looking to dismiss the entire statement because of the Fox News comparison, feel free to disregard that part entirely. The point still stands that CNN is left leaning, and that fact is not mentioned anywhere in this article. 2601:18F:4101:4830:55AF:FC89:E9EF:1B8 (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Fox News article needs to be dealt with over at Fox News and while you may have a point, nothing will change unless you point to reliable sources that have discussed CNN as left-leaning. Slywriter (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Agreed. Honestly, the bias in these articles are incredible. Right-leaning news organizations such as FOX and Sky Australia are all furnished with sections detailing its controversies. Sanger isn't wrong about this website. Blizzard-of-Revisions1220 (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Reality has a well-known liberal bias, as they say. Fox and Breitbart and a tiny handful of others are the outliers, and the nature of being an outlier is that they tend to be more controversial and "out there" as they rail against "big media". Hence more coverage for their non-mainstream POVs. ValarianB (talk) 12:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC) "Reality has a well-known communist bias, as Stalin would say. Reality has a well-known fascist bias, as Mussolini would say. Reality has a well-known nazi bias, as Hitler would say." Really? Reality has no bias; its all in the eyes of the observer. If you observe CNN from a wealthy middle class suburb, I'm sure it looks very unbiased. But if you are a blue-collar worker from upstate New York watching CNN, I am sure you will detect some bias. Creuzbourg (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC) Cute, but there's nothing you're going to do about it, as said observers are a distinct minority. ValarianB (talk) 11:48, 23 March 2021 (UTC) American liberals are hilarious. They think they are "progressives", but are only handmaidens of global capitalism. Creuzbourg (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2021

There is no way anyone would consider CNN’s programming to be “non-partisan”. It’s absurd!! I request that any statement even resembling that be removed. 2600:1700:3650:9320:3893:C04D:6A57:9A62 (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

2601:580:4200:71D0:65D2:348A:CC78:1E4B (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Can someone please change the line "before entering the building and destroying portions of the interior" to something else? The truth is, the furthest any protester went was probably not even halfway through the lobby! Nothing inside was destroyed. Can you please change this overdue thing? Thanks2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 2603:7080:BB0E:FFE9:FD40:CD7E:C079:DAB2 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Question: What should that line be changed to? You'll need to provide a reliable source supporting your claim as well. Deauthorized. ^(talk) 22:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

ReliableDave (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed from "and for its efforts to be nonpartisan," to "and for its efforts to be partisan"[1][2][3][4]

[1] https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9467611/CNN-technical-director-makes-embarrassing-admission-getting-catfished-Tinder.html
[2] https://nypost.com/2021/04/13/cnns-charlie-chester-says-network-peddled-anti-trump-propaganda/
[3] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14645965/ccn-staffer-admits-propaganda-project-veritas/
[4] https://www.newsweek.com/james-okeefe-expand-his-war-cnn-lawsuits-more-video-1583722

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not?

@ReliableDave: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is an explanatory supplement to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The sources in your edit request are unreliable for the statement in your request. And sign your posts, please.--Renat 16:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't be serious. Newsweek and NY Post aren't reliable? How convenient. How about a literal video of the technical director admitting as much plus recorded conference calls of the 9 am Zucker meetings? How isn't there a Controversy section in this article with the ExposeCNN claims that are completely valid and a serious concern for obvious bias? It would be up there if it had happened to Fox News(and rightfully so, I'd write it up myself). CNN is literal propaganda for fuck sake [3], their own technical director even says so. They don't report the news, they decide what it is. He literally says they dropped the Asian hate stuff because their investigations found that it was mostly black people and they "support the BLM movement". CNN should definitely be removed from reliable sources when it comes to politics as well, everything right-leaning has been. Fair is fair. Saying Fox News isn't reliable for politics but CNN is, is literally insane. You guys should call yourselves The Ministry of Truth. The people running this site are disgusting human beings with zero integrity but what else is new. Truth matters, not your personal opinions and political biases. Wikipedia is turning into a Stalin-like, authoritarian, hellhole that lacks anything considered close to integrity, neutrality, and most importantly the truth. I hope you know that everyone is becoming keen on your blatant attacks on truth in order to push your own personal and political agendas, it's gross.

Sawyermade (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:VERITAS and WP:NYPOST. Newsweek may be a reliable source, but James O'Keefe is not. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a reason apart from him not aligning to your ideas? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason why I say this is because conducting an illegal sting does not imply the falsity of a statement. A statement's falsity is proven by evidence against its veracity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Project Veritas has been shown to doctor videos in misleading ways. soibangla (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Unique One v2.0, I find it fascinating that you used Conservapedia as a source.[4] soibangla (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you state why that's not a source? Are only liberal sources reliable? Can I get evidence for that? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And, oh my God! You just made my point! I was stating that many right-leaning sources state that CNN is liberal. That's exactly what you're also saying! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And also, is Washington Post conservative?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/10/21/lets-rank-the-media-from-liberal-to-conservative-based-on-their-audiences/ The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's evidence that the Washington Post leans left:

https://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=637508&p=4462444 The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh, Conservapedia is "a source," alright. Except it's trash. soibangla (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSP, post-2013 Newsweek is a dubious source. It is a shadow of its former credibility. soibangla (talk) 15:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

CNN may or may not be left-leaning but CNN is indeed considered by some to be left-leaning; that's what the edit is about.

The title means it all. Although my previous edit meant that CNN is left-leaning (which it is, according to several reliable sources that are mentioned in this edit), my present edit states that a number of sources consider CNN to be left-leaning. This is not a falsity since there are three reliable sources for this information. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You did not provide reliable sources. soibangla (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There were five sources. Can you please state how they are not reliable?! Removing cited information is a clear abuse of opportunity. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

And one of them was Conservapedia. haha soibangla (talk) 16:23, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to pick one out of five. How about the Washington Post? The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think even you'd agree silently that CNN leans left from its coverage of right-leaning individuals and parties over the last few years. I am ashamed that people like you don't want to accept the truth. People look up to Wikipedia for the truth and not for your opinions. Wikipedia acclaim the Washington Post as a reliable source and hence what it says is reliable. Why don't you permit that from being published?! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

The Pew/WaPo story refers to audiences, not the sources themselves. I suggest you cease making unfounded assertions about me.soibangla (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

"The Pew/WaPo story refers..."

Exactly. That's exactly what my edit says as well. You have to learn to read what the edit was. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

As it has been stated before; nobody cares. "Reality has a well-known liberal bias", so it makes sense to note the outliers like Fox News or OANN. CNN, WPost, etc...are (and sorry if this bursts bubbles) normal. We don't need to qualify normal with descriptors. ValarianB (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Fox News is reportedly way less rightist than OANN. It's interesting how you equated the two of them. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Does the consensus of the editors matter more than the facts?

The fact is that Pew and WaPo state the liberal inclination of the audience of CNN. The editors' consensus is that the readers of the article should not be made aware of this fact. This is not objective editing! Please remove your own biases when editing articles on Wikipedia! The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You are criticizing others' reading skills above, but you have yet to address the actual reasons for being removed. Just repeating "stop censoring Important Facts!" isn't persuasive because a fact being true isn't the only criterion for including in an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

It actually is an important fact since there is not a single conservative news channel that is not mentioned to be so while several left-leaning and leftist ones are not mentioned to be so. It is very important and there is all the more reason to make the public aware of the same. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Please cite reliable sources characterizing CNN, rather than its audience, as liberal. soibangla (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, CNN audience and CNN are not the same thing. And also, just because something isn't right-wing doesn't make it necessarily left leaning. There's the middle ground that's based on facts and science. For example, telling people COVID is real doesn't make you liberal, simply because it's against what some right wing conspirators believe. It's just facts. So, you need something more solid to support your argument. — Starforce¹³ 16:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't asked for or made an edit that says CNN is liberal. I myself understand the values of being centrist and am not an ultra-rightist myself. But, why are the other editors so adamant that we shouldn't mention the liberal nature of the audience? In fact, when juxtaposed with the fact that CNN provides a balance (or a false balance, as the post says), it only gives a positive image of being more centrist to the leftist community. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

The presumed audience political leaning has no relevance to the article. Otherwise, we might as well include everything that has ever been written about CNN, its audience or even staff here.— Starforce¹³ 18:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

CNN, Newsmax, and all that Apply

Hello,

I was the one that was editing without warning a couple months ago. Sorry, but I just don’t understand. Wikipedia claims to be neutral. But I think this is obviously biased. I am with @The Unique One v2.0: on this kind of stuff.

CNN is so important to Wikipedia.

CNN needs this added to be neutral viewpoint.

Newsmax is not valuable to Wikipedia.

All the entries that make Wikipedia biased.

All the entries that make Wikipedia biased.

The first pictures show CNN is way more important to Wikipedia. WHY? The second pictures show the actual articles. You say you are neutral and not supposed to have a biased view: Neutral Point of View and [Pillars]. If you were neutral you would at least mention CNN was liberal once. I don’t think you mention it at all. Whereas Newsmax is conservative, trump loving, and other stuff you put in there. I mean it is true, but again put liberal and Biden loving in CNN then. You do have a CNN Controversies page, but you made it separate, I think so its not in the main article. Either merge or put some of that in the main article to be neutral then. You also automatically say Newsmax has false accusations and conspiracy theories. This goes with all the other articles that apply. You should put liberal in Google and all those big companies. But especially these news articles. This is not okay.

Do you know it’s biased and are not listening to people because you don’t want it changed or are you just impulsive.

Who else is with me? Does this make sense? Anston06 (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I said. I am totally fine if you keep out political adjectives from both CNN and Fox News. But, keeping it away from CNN and keeping it for all (show me one that isn't marked 'conservative') conservative news channels is exactly against the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality.

It doesn't matter whether you are a liberal or a conservative. I myself am not a Trump-supporter; I am a morally center-rightist and fiscally center-leftist person. But that doesn't matter when you are editing stuff on Wikipedia. Things have to be fair and equal for both sides of the table. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

The "we" you refer to are reliable secondary sources. If you can provide such sources here to characterize CNN as liberal and Biden-supporting, by all means do so. There are seven sources characterizing Newsmax as conservative, four sources characterizing Chris Ruddy as a Trump confidant, and he has said "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of [Trump] and his policies." Is there a comparable statement by Jeff Zucker? Also, there is a notable tendency of conservative media and those who consume them to characterize "the other guys" who aren't similarly aligned to therefore be liberal, as if there cannot be a vast middle. In recent years there has been an explosion of conservative media outlets that consistently, overtly and shamelessly traffic in lies and conspiracy theories. CNN? Not so much. soibangla (talk) 14:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's one of the best non-partisan sources you can ever get on political bias of the media: Ad Fontes Media

https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/

It accurately considers AP and Reuters to be unbiased. It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 18:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I recommend you WP:BEBOLD and characterize CNN as "liberal" or "left-leaning" in the lead sentence with that source and see if it is challenged in WP:BRD. Let's settle this for once and for all. soibangla (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. @Soibangla: I will definetely do so! Anston06 (talk) 19:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Didn't that happen before? I did it and folks reverted it with no discussion. I later did it in the third paragraph and faced the same outcome. I had given reliable sources, not ones like Conservopedia. And yet, it was taken down. I don't see why that won't happen again but let's hope for the best anyway. The Unique One v2.0 (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Which sources did you use? If they were low-quality, or just the one you cite above, removal would likely be warranted. In a case like this, I would argue that a preponderance of reliable sources would be necessary. There are seven for Newsmax. soibangla (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

[ec] Ad Fontes Media is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. See its entry in WP:RSP. It will be challenged and removed, leaving us right back here talking about how "Other Stuff Exists" is weak sauce for Wikipedia purposes.

Furthermore, it puts Fox News in the "hyper-partisan right" column, along with the likes of Newsmax, OAN, PragerU, and Breitbart. To say that "It also accurately considers CNN to be left-leaning and Fox News to be right-leaning" is a false equivalence, obvious to anyone looking at the chart, and carries an aroma of rhetorical shenanigans. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not about sourcing, sourcing has never been the issue here; it is about reality. The majority of actual, legitimate media, i.e. organizations with a reputable history for fact-checking & accuracy fall to the more liberal, open and yes, left-leaning side of the political spectrum. The Wikipedia does not need to take extra steps to describe CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and others as "liberal" and similar, we already know this, as it is baseline normality in media.

Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Many people, and the media outlets they consume, do not approach issues with the scientific method to arrive at conclusions. Instead, they begin with beliefs they assume as truth, and all their analysis flows from those root beliefs. And when good journalists consistently reach conclusions with the scientific method that happen to align with one political party's policy positions rather than another party's policy positions, they are perceived by some as "liberal." Many people appear to have not been paying attention when the scientific method began to be taught to them in — what, 4th grade? soibangla (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Some honesty please, and some reliable sources

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As a former fan, I was devastated at what Trump did to CNN. They played right into his hands, and turned it into a ridiculously partisan network along the lines of FOX News and MSNBC. And they haven't recovered. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/ rates CNN as: CNN Bias Rating: LEFT Factual Reporting: MIXED Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on editorial positions that consistently favor the left, while straight news reporting falls left-center through bias by omission. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to several failed fact checks by TV hosts. However, news reporting on the website tends to be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks. The extremely thorough and highly respected (not to mention absolutely PRECIOUS) Ad Fontes Media project (https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/) rates CNN's news reporting as "skews left" and Opinion as close to "Hyper-Partisan Left" The lesson here kids is: stick to the wire services (AFP, AP, Reuters). The US media landscape has become so bipolarized, that you simply can't trust any of these flashy corporate giants. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Ironically, nowadays the Christian Science Monitor and UPI are the least biased outlets in the US. but Outside the US you can look to France24, i24, and a host of smaller newspapers in France, Netherlands, Germany, South Africa, India, etc. TomReagan90 (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC) The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst"soibangla (talk) 16:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC) https://www.adfontesmedia.com/static-mbc/ TomReagan90 (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC) https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings - CNN fallen into the same category as Alternet, HuffPo, Jacobin, Slate, Vox?! Oh how the mighty have fallen. Surely some well-intentioned billionaire could buy out CNN and transfer all their assets to NPR News, to give the USA at least one source of non-partisan TV news?... The Christian Science Monitor eh? what a world... TomReagan90 (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Can I add an edit saying that CNN is a liberal news network channel because other news channels as fox news etc. are labeled conservative channels except for the ones that are liberal. CB30303 (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

No, you may not. To repeat what I stated in an earlier discussion on the same subject, Fox News, OANN, and a handful of other fringe media are the outliers, thus they are characterized as "conservative", "far-right", etc...to denote their unusualness within the larger media realm. The Wikipedia notes that Barack Obama was a black president. The Wikipedia does not note that Millard Fillmore was a white president. ValarianB (talk) 19:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

You sure can — if you have reliable sources saying they are. soibangla (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing has never really been the issue here. ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, Mr. CB30303, you created your account and then 3 minutes later came to make this edit request as your very first edit. Curious timing, as there is a user named @Chimichangazzz: who is trying to make the same type of edit, and is being rebuffed. What attracted to you come to this article at this moment? Is there perhaps a web forum, social media thread, etc...? ValarianB (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

This is WP:SNOWBALL. It's been brought up so many times by the same few people and their potential sock puppets and the consensus has been clear from all the other discussion. It's time to accept the existing consensus and move on. It beats the point of consensus (and honestly, it's kind of disrespectful to other editors' time) to keep bringing up the same thing without any significant changes in the subject.— Starforce¹³ 19:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and Advertising

The intro of this article is very self-aggrandizing and does not show NPOV. The second paragraph currently reads as:

"As of September 2018, CNN has 90.1 million television households as subscribers (97.7% of households with cable) in the United States.[12] In 2019, CNN ranked third in viewership among cable news networks, behind Fox News and MSNBC, averaging 972,000 viewers.[13] CNN ranks 14th among all basic cable networks.[14][15]"

I recommend that this information should be placed in a chart under a "Historical Viewership" section. Viewership and membership change constantly and a snapshot of CNNs high ratings/viewership should not define what CNN is in the intro of this page. One example of changes in viewership number is in the year 2021, CNN took a nosedive in viewership which has been notable after the presidential election of the year prior.12.227.66.34 (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

So...update it to the 2021 numbers. ValarianB (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

....You seem to forget that the article is semi protected. Also, I am not good at fancy edits so that is why this has been brought up for discussion. This edit is here until an good wiki editor can implement the change.

The change should not not just update the numbers but would be beneficially to show a yearly chart to show readers full context of CNNs popularity over time.12.227.66.34 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

To restore the integrity of Wikipedia, shouldn't we start with CNN?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm guessing the admins and editors of Wikipedia either don't care or are unaware of how they are perceived when NPOV isn't followed. We can all agree that mainstream media is somewhat partisan nowadays, with very few exceptions in print and wire services. So, why can't we all agree to include CNN controversies and honestly describe the left-leaning skew? Don't we want Wikipedia to be a place of equality and neutrality? I propose we add sourcing to describe this to restore this website back to its rightful place of honesty. Curivity (talk) 06:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC) We can all agree that mainstream media is somewhat partisan nowadays..., er, no, we actually don't "all agree" on that. So kindly do not make assumptions regarding the beliefs and opinions of other users. As to CNN controversies, that article is linked to prominently in the 3rd section of the opening section. Finally, for "skew", reality has a well-known liberal bias, as they say. ValarianB (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC) I'm curious who wouldn't view the mainstream media as somewhat partisan at this point in time, and if so, what specifically do they base that conclusion on? And who's "they" who say reality has a liberal bias? If we can't agree on these fundamental issues, I don't think we'll reach a point where the majority feels the editing is equal. Curivity (talk) 05:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC) If you have have an actual suggestion for specific text to be added or removed to the article, feel free to bring that to the table. Otherwise, per WP:NOTAFORUM, we're not going to discuss the media in generalities here. ValarianB (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Oh, wait. You're this guy - (Archived Discussion). Do you have anything new to add, or is this just going to be a rehash of that conversation? ValarianB (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC) "the admins and editors of Wikipedia either don't care or are unaware of how they are perceived" As an editor, I don't particularly care for how we are perceived. Wikipedia has been receiving harsh criticisms for all 20 years of its existence, for not toeing the line of whichever ideology its critics are following. Your suggestion translates to making POV edits to articles in order to earn brownie points with whoever thinks that CNN is an American version of the Pravda. This would discard Wikipedia's integrity, not improve it. Dimadick (talk) 18:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC) Your accusations of my intentions being for "brownie points" are purely speculation and untruthful. Just because you refuse to accept the reality of scant internal criticism between news outlets that share similar viewpoints does not bode well for any standard of achieving impartiality. Just because administrators that may understand this and feel similarly can't or will not speak up so as to go against the "group think" that's pervasive in this medium does not equate to the reality underlying the situation. It's easier for you, or anyone, to refuse the allegations that many have put forth, such as; sourcing for Wikipedia articles that describe conservative organizations (Fox News, OANN, etc.) are heavily partisan (Media Matters as an example) and are accepted as standard sourcing. I will be proposing a change to CNN's controversies section and lead section to include new sourcing that describes CNN's outward opinionated coverage soon: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/media/cnn-opinionated-emotional-zucker/2021/05/11/5f32eb38-7f92-11eb-81db-b02f0398f49a_story.html Curivity (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

CNN is a Far LEFT leaning organization

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia needs to include the Subject line in their description of CNN that they are a FAR LEFT LEANING organization. Wikipedia is a liberal controlled website and completely unreliable as any source of real factual information. I A You're going to need a couple very good and reliable sources, then once you have those you'll need to start a discussion to seek consensus. Otherwise your wanted change is never going to remain in the article. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Precisely. If Wikipedia can justify describing OANN as "far-right" then CNN needs to be described at LEAST as "far-left". What is wrong with you people? Why are you SO obsessed with obscuring the truth and presenting your feelings as facts? Especially in a resource which CLAIMS impartiality and objectivity?! If you're not going to allow honesty, then stop pretending you're any sort of valid source of reliable information; you're anything BUT, Liberalpedia. MarkoOhNo (talk) 13:07, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Sources? Please provide reliable sources that back up the statement. Otherwise these are not forums and your rants are purely disruptive. Slywriter (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Controversies/Criticism section absent, POV issue?

It appears that the criticism section experienced its final death here[5]. I am aware of the singular link in the lead to the CNN controversies page. Pretty glaring to compare this article with other articles, like Washington Post or MSNBC or ESPECIALLY Fox News where a great deal, if not the majority of the article focuses on criticisms and controversy. Surely there has been enough controversy and criticism of CNN to warrant a stub-like section that includes the lead from CNN controversies, and a link to it, as I have seen commonly on other articles. Currently it appears that CNN is without DUE criticism! Perhaps we can generalize enough to actually produce a decent general section but I would endorse a simple "Criticism" section with a link for the time being. SmolBrane (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

We don't automatically structure articles on similar topics the same way; and in general, I still hold that criticism sections are not a useful way to organize material. WP:CORG is for when the controversies are a major part of the subject; that doesn't seem to be the case here - the section you added had a smattering of individual reports (some of which, like the Nation, the Erik Wemple opinion piece, the Guardian piece, and the Huffington Post piece are WP:PRIMARY sources of criticism), not something supporting the section's statement that it has been broadly criticized or the WP:CORG requirement for secondary coverage (which, even then, only may justify it; the arguments against criticism sections still stand and have to be weighed against the sourcing and their significance.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:25, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I'm not a huge fan of a large controversies section, but controversies most broadly defined has such a significant DUEness that it requires a section on this page. Controversies are a normative subject for media companies, especially large and prolific ones like CNN. The Controversies section operates as a summary of the spinoff article, and I have structured it as such. Politics/international issues/comments by their staff is a nice rough way to do it based on the structure of CNN controversies. Perhaps that could be improved. I have included “specific instances” to help readers understand that this is not typically a general criticism/controversy.

It's also important to include a controversies section as it includes the issue in the ToC which allows readers to quickly navigate to content, like the significant controversies that CNN has been involved in. It is VERY abnormal to have a 86kB article on Controversies mentioned in the lead without a related section in the body.

The Nation's article doesn't just feature criticism by the author, it mentions criticism by many people, although I am not committed to it remaining if it is that unsuitable. I have replaced the Wemple piece with a non-opinion article regarding the Brazile controversy. I have replaced both the Guardian and Huffington Post articles with non-opinion reliable sources.

Please feel free to change the structure but do not delete this section. It is DUE to remain. I also think it could be moved further down the article. SmolBrane (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted a re-addition to the section. Generally, there should be consensus before challenged material is re-added to an article. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

There never was consensus to remove this section, please cite a diff/talk section if you can. A review of the article history indicates that the last talk page discussion before removal is on Archive 8. A controversies section first appeared on this article in 2005, it was removed for some period in 2006, was reinserted before the end of 2006 and remained in some form until removal recently in 2020. The relative significance of the issue and the lack of consensus to remove would indicate that removal constitutes the challenge. Any comments on DUEness, which seems extraordinary here? This section's absence on this article when it appears on so many other media company's articles is a severe NPOV issue that is also going unacknowledged here. SmolBrane (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Here's a better timeline of what actually happened. Aquillion deleted the section here[6]Removal was disputed here[7]Removed again[8]Disputed again[9]Removed again[10]. (Allegation of the need for consensus to include starts with this edit)

From Talk:consensus to remove acknowledged as absent[11]consensus to remove acknowledged again as absent[12]

There has been a sleight of hand here, where consensus to remove was never established, and has since been erroneously used to omit this content. SmolBrane (talk) 23:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Alternative proposal for section text

CNN has received allegations of bias, and has been involved in controversies and received criticism for its coverage on international incidents and its individual hosts' and contributors' remarks.

Any further thoughts on this dispute @Aoi and Aquillion: or this alternative proposal, before I open a NPOV noticeboard discussion? I am very uninterested in listing specific incidents like it was done historically on this page; it produces too much clutter and leaves the section open-ended to be expanded. I believe this alternate proposal would be a better way to present this information. For consideration—here is a list of perennial reliable sources that are media companies that feature Controversy or Criticism sections. It is not a comprehensive list.

The Hill (newspaper), The Intercept, National Geographic, NBC News (section entitled Sexual Misconduct and NBC News), New Scientist, The New York Times, Politico, Politifact (section: Allegations of political bias), The Wall Street Journal (Section: bias in news pages), Associated Press, The Daily Telegraph. SmolBrane (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging editors from the previous recent discussions: CatcherStorm(now @LJF2019: I think???), @Mellk, RenatUK, Slywriter, Curivity, DanielRigal, Marquis de Faux, and Just plain Bill:

Omitting the following users from the ping: Chimichangazzz(blocked), Yashamaga(blocked), Edit5001(blocked), MrX(retired/inactive), JzG(on a break since May, maybe could be pinged?), Objective3000(retired). SmolBrane (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No further thoughts at the moment -- my revert was based on WP:STATUSQUO and not necessarily on any preference as to what the section should or shouldn't look like. I only ask that some rough consensus be reached on whatever the text should be before the text is added to the article to prevent an edit war. Objective3000 should probably be pinged since they seem to have sporadic recent edits, though they may or may not have comments. Also re-pinging Marquis de Faux and Just plain Bill as the technical requirements to be pinged were not fulfilled the first time around. Aoi (青い) (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking of me... I have this page on my watch list, and have preferences set so I don't see pings. Just watching for now... Cheers, Just plain Bill (talk) 15:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This section was removed improperly on Dec 15, 2020[13], with an erroneous statement that a consensus existed to remove, which it did not. This was noted on the talk page at the time:[14]. This section existed on this page for fifteen years, so that should be the status quo that we yield to, not the dubious status quo that was established through a policy violation, disputed immediately, and disputed since. Removal of the section was disputed on Jan 16 2021[15], and again on June 27 2021[16]. I have revised my addition twice to try to accomodate objections. No substantive argument has been made to its removal given the significance of WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. Editors here so far are ignoring good faith questions, and opposing inclusion needs to address WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. Given the lack of consensus to remove this long-standing content, the section should be promptly reinstated, and its contents can be further discussed. The current state of the article suggests to readers that CNN does not have any DUE controversies and this is an NPOV problem. Readers should not be required to read the lead or the Trump presidency sections in order to find a link to controversies. There needs to be a section to comply with WEIGHT and IMPARTIAL. The guidelines on space and balance also address this: Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial#Space_and_balance. I will wait a couple days before taking this to the dispute resolution noticeboard. -SmolBrane (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Aquillion: It appears from your silence that you do not object to my revised addition that simply links to sections on the CNN controversies page. If you still object, please explain why in the next few days, thanks. SmolBrane (talk) 16:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

No, I'm still flatly opposed to any section devoted to controversies or criticisms; I've made it clear that that's my fundamental objection, so I don't see how you can describe your changes as concessions if they would still produce a section devoted to them. I'm welcome to any discussions about how to include them in a neutral section, but given that it has been gone for more than a year and the article has been stable that entire time you would obviously need a consensus to restore it and I'm not seeing that. If you think there's a consensus to add the section you're suggesting, feel free to start an WP:RFC, but I am not seeing it here. --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe a Controversies section is neutral, given the nature of an international media corporation, and given the significant viewpoints in reliable sources, but nonetheless it appears we are at an impasse so I will start an RfC. SmolBrane (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

How about the fact that today, after a year of lying about Kyle Rittenhouse and refusing to report on items that sources that Wikipedia considers unreliable had right all along. LIKE he did NOT drive across state lines with a weapon. He picked it up from a friend in Kenosha. OR that convicted child molester started a dumpster fire, Rittenhouse used a fire extinguisher to try to put it out and that was what set the whole thing in motion. CNN has already had to pay a HUGE unannounced amount of money for defamation, and as of today they finally started correcting their lies in the hopes of avoiding paying more. I think it will be pretty easy for Rittenhouse to show they are not being forthright in this66.68.178.180 (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

There should be at least a factual errors section like Newsweek. Poynter gives several high profile inaccuracies compared with the trivial handshake and flag painting errors given in the Wikipedia Newsweek article. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Using the same site you used for Newsweek: Snopes. CNN wrongly accused Trump of buying children, is known for manipulating tweets and accused Spencer of questioning if Jews are people. Much more serious inaccuracies than those in the Newsweek article, bar the poor health advice to parents with young toddlers. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

CNN is not nonpartisan

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.

---

CNN has displayed zero commitment to nonpartisan. It has been a mouth piece for liberals and Biden administration. It is not ashamed to publish untrue conspiracy theory when attacking former president Trump. 'The network is known for its dramatic live coverage of breaking news, some of which has drawn criticism as overly sensationalistic, and for its efforts to be nonpartisan, which have led to accusations of false balance.[20]' This part needs to be edited out. If not, wikipedia has lost its integrity for not providing fair and correct statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wtyuy (talk • contribs) 20:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia says what reliable sources say, and reliable sources say CNN makes efforts to be nonpartisan. postleft on mobile! 02:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Wow! When you try to neutralize a topic, it gets shut down on Wikipedia. Proves Wikipedia is not nonpartisan. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Read the close summary. Random complaints aren't constructive, reliable sources that support clear changes are. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

So you are using an unreliable Source: Snopes in the Newsweek article. Interesting. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I am? Can you show me a diff where I'm using either of those sources? I'm not even sure what you're talking about. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I regard Poynter and Snopes as reliable sources, but obviously that's where we differ. TheeFactChecker (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm talking about Wikipedia has to use the same standards in all articles, so if Snopes is used as a reliable source in one article, it can't be counted as unreliable for another article. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there a specific situation you're talking about, or is this all hypothetical? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I've explained my issues very clearly in criticism section. And if you read Newsweek article you can find what I'm referring to. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As in Newsweek Wikipedia page. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

And I just checked there; Snopes is listed as reliable source on Wikipedia, so no nothing I have said is hypothetical. TheeFactChecker (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2021 (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.

One more letter?

This is very nitpicky, but in the picture caption of Donald Trump at a CNN interview in 2016, shouldn’t it be “Donald Trump interviews with CNN and Voice of America? Donald Trump is doing something, so shouldn’t interview be a verb? Sorry — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.196.182.116 (talk) 02:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the word is functioning as a noun here. We could say "A Donald Trump interview" but the current phrasing is ok. SmolBrane (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2021

PLEASE ADD A , “Controversies,” or similar section Consider a, “Controversies,” section, or link to ethics in media. Pretty much all cable programming, be it Fox, CNN, MSNBC, or what have you is, “opinion programming,” by virtue of canted eyebrow, and delivery.

Conflict of interest: CNN made the choice not to insist that Chris Cuomo, a marquee product, take a leave of absence during his brother, the Governor’s, sex scandal.

“The next year, as Andrew Cuomo was facing an increasing number of sexual harassment accusations, Chris Cuomo recused himself from reporting on the scandal, leaving a prime-time hole in CNN’s coverage of what was turning out to be a national news story.” NYT 12/5/2021

Bauder, David (March 1, 2021). "CNN's Chris Cuomo says he 'obviously' can't cover brother". Associated Press. Retrieved March 1, 2021. 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC) 2601:19C:4800:31D0:16E:2E85:C311:907 (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See discussion above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, really. Chris did the right thing by recusing himself from that topic, hence no violation of COI. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)