Talk:CNN controversies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Article

The page is only about 10 mins old. Expansion and segmentation of the entry will happen over time. I could double the mass of the article myself actually, but in the interest of not having one-man consensus, I'll let someone else make adjustments for now. Don't delete the article. Amibidhrohi 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Does the infobox really belong on this page? I don't particularly care either way; it just seems rather redundant. --Aaron 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not a must, but it cannot hurt either. - TopAce 20:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Content

What happened to the content of this article when it was merged with the CNN article? Every little bit of dirt liberals can think of on Fox News made it to Fox's separate article, but yet the same thing didn't happen with CNN? And Wikipedia editors don't have a liberal bias . . . RIGHT . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.168.32.250 (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is 8 pages long. The one on FOX is 24 pages long. I don't expect complete equality, but is FOX REALLY that much worse? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.53.196 (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Of course not. Fox is much more towards the center than CNN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.213.168 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Old news

Any thoughts on adding this. As I recall, it caused some minor stir awhile back. Just throwing out suggestions. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

I think it should be pointed out that Glenn Beck's radio show has large amounts of commedy and Mr. Beck does not claim to really have a news show. His statments should be taken with a grain of salt and should certainlly be looked at as editorial rather than news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.165.251.16 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

This page reads like it was written by CNN's defense lawyer - and of course there is someone "watching" the page to prevent any attempt at removing the advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.110.100 (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Note that by the very nature of this article, it will be susceptible to criticism, NPOV issues, bias, etc. The cause of controversy is a dispute of so-called facts, which consequently results in a lack of reputable and/or verifiable facts appropriate for Wikipedia sources and references. --Thisisbossi 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Blitzer Racist

I removed the "Blitzer Racist" controversy, since it was noted by almost all commentators that the victims of Katrina were predominantly black. In addition, the reference which supposedly established that some people accused Blitzer of being racist linked to a Slate article in which the author expressed a belief that Blitzer is NOT racist. If you would like to re-add the section, please establish better documentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.213.67 (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The Slate article which is a source for this claim, accused Blitzer of making a racist comment, while acknowledging he is not racist. This is what the article currently says. Specifically, the Slate article said "Blitzer .. stumbled and fell into a "Campanis moment." It links to the author's coined term "Campanis moment", which is: "A "Campanis moment" comes when a non-bigot says something regrettably racist while speaking extemporaneously." Isarig 02:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Move to CNN controversies

How about moving this to CNN controversies as BBC controversies and Fox News Channel controversies? --GunnarRene 20:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with your recommendation. --Thisisbossi 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

CNN being used by Hezbollah as a propagandizing tool

http://newsbusters.org/node/6574

http://www.hannity.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2523746&postcount=1

http://newsbusters.org/node/6552

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.213.168 (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hannity.com forumns and newsbuster are not acceptable sources.

Wrong Date

"On December 16, 2006, CNN's main competitor, Fox News Channel announced that Novak had signed a deal to do undisclosed work for the network." But today is 5 September 2006. —The preceding comment was signed as LKLK by 69.210.23.124 (talk) on 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The date has since been modified from 2006 to 2005. I do not know if this is indeed accurate, but it is at least more accurate than 2006. --Thisisbossi 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sniper controversy

Is it just me, or does the "sniper video" entry look like it was written with a lot of pro-American bias? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.160.120.185 (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that by the very nature of this article, it will be susceptible to criticism, NPOV issues, bias, etc. The cause of controversy is a dispute of so-called facts, which consequently results in a lack of reputable and/or verifiable facts appropriate for Wikipedia sources and references. --Thisisbossi 01:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Boo-hooing Daddy Bush beats 'Lil Bush

I looked it up. Pretty sure somebody made this up. If I am incorrect, you can put it back...


CNN's neurolinguistic programming

Try this soundbite from CNN's advert/interlude : " . . . can be punished for that opinion" . . . as announcer 1%ter Richard Quest (worth quite a few million) for being a mouth piece) read from the script.

Freedom of speech, implies that opinions in themselves are not punishable. Much like Voltair's right to freedom of speech and by extension life. What does CNN mean can be punished (for

an opinion)? Be required to retract that opinions at most? Any opinion may also be arguable from an 'existential rights' standpoint. All persons are equal so why does voicing an opinion

result in punishment?!? Disappointing, CNN!

http://pastebin.com/123iMwPn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.39.114 (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Clearly Not Neutral" nickname.

If anyone has a reliable source for this nickname, it would be appreciated. In my searching, I have only found Wikipedia (and Wikipedia mirrors) using this phrase. Italiavivi 00:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheney "X"

Is the Cheney situation really a worthy controversy? I submit that it is minor and apparently a graphical mistake for which CNN has appologized. I think it may fall into WP:NOT. Arzel 17:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The switchboard operator's response ("Was it not freedom of speech?") makes the controversy notable enough for inclusion. Oppose removal. Italiavivi 19:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure why that makes it worthy, but in any case I spent some time examining the alleged controversy. Problem 1: The link to the statement you quote is not within the source linked....well it might be, but you have to pay to read it so it is not possible to actualy read what was said. Problem 2: I was unable to find any other active link to support the alleged statement, nor anything to support the fact that a CNN employee was fired. Thus the first point of the controversy cannot be researched. Problem 3: Several people have determined the overlay included the words "Transition begins after 5 frames of black" thus confirming the result that is was a graphical error. While I agree it is an interesting subject, there doesn't seem to be any further controversy regarding this issue. In anycase, unless a new reference to the supposed firing of an employee over the incident can be found it must be removed. Arzel 02:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No Further discussion? Without a valid link supporting the fact that the statement was made or that the employee was fired, the statement is hersay so I am removing the controversy as that statement was the only aspect making it worth noting. Arzel 14:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
There's a valid link to a NY Post article which makes it clear taht CNN fired the operator. I removed the exact language the operator used, as that is not in the link. Isarig 20:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Is there any other reference to this besides the NY Post? If this is really a controversy you would think there are more. I think it should go unless a better reference can be found, one that is a non-paying link. Arzel 22:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not the link is pay or non-pay has no bearing on the quality or reliability of the source. Gamaliel (Orwellian Cyber hell master) 22:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
True, but did this actually happen, or is it just alleged that CNN fired an operator and that they actual said what they said. This sounds like gossip, and I have been unable to verify it anywhere. Arzel 02:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Complaint" vs. "controversy"

Hal Raglan removed the section on Rick Kaplan because it was "more of a complaint than a controversy". What's the difference between a complaint and a controversy? Is it the number of people doing the complaining?

Also, Hal also removed the section on Ted Turner, since the controversial comments weren't directly related to CNN. I would say that, being the founder and owner of CNN, anything he says or does affects the public perception of CNN (just as the Fox News Channel controversies article contains criticism of Rupert Murdoch), but I'd like to hear other people's opinions on this. Korny O'Near 02:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. A complaint from one person is not a controversy. If we were to include every single complaint lodged against CNN by conservatives, this article would be gigantic. We have to be selective and include only actual controversies that have been reported by reliable sources.
If the comments made by Ted Turner resulted in actual controversies, then they belong to be referenced on the Ted Turner page, not here. If the Fox News Controversies article contains criticism of Murdoch for his current role as a controlling force over Fox News, thats a completely different thing. The Turner quotes are simply included here and are not related in any way to CNN. I see no such similarity in the Fox News Controversies page.-Hal Raglan 03:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a second comment (by John Fund) about Rick Kaplan - what do you think of it now? Though, to bring up the Fox News controversies page again, many of the specific examples cited there do have only one source, namely, Media Matters (and that article is, in fact, huge). Just wondering what you think about that.
As to Ted Turner - you're right that the criticisms of Murdoch on the Fox News article are more apropos. I'll take out that section. Korny O'Near 05:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The addition of the Fund comment improves the Kaplan paragraph. In my mind, its still not a controversy but if two notable pundits have remarked on this I suppose its inclusion in the article makes sense of some kind. If the Fox News Controversies article consists of a simple list of complaints from one source, I would say the article could be trimmed down considerably.-Hal Raglan 03:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Racist Accusations Against Bill O'Reilly

I added the whole shindig about CNN going after Bill O'Reilly about his radio conversation with Juan Williams. It may need some work, but the sources are all good. Arnabdas 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying things like "liberally biased Media Matters ... who often criticizes O'Reilly and others through distortion" is nowhere near NPOV, and the whole section needs serious cleanup to neutrally present the information. Tag applied, grossy inappropriate statement removed. /Blaxthos 21:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely is justified. Media Matters is liberally biased, even their wiki entry says so. That is pretty much consensus. I don't see how anything else isn't NPOV. Arnabdas 15:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I put back in the Media Matters reference. I believe it was they who were the ones who made the racist accusation. CNN just allowed it to be said unchallenged, despite O'Reilly's private explanation to them of what he meant by it. O'Reilly's criticism was that CNN was just using information from Media Matters as a primary source without going after the real truth. Arnabdas 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Including this makes absolutely no sense. Bill O'Reilly's comments created the controversy, NOT CNN's reporting on the comments. The comments caused a fairly good sized commotion, and CNN simply reported the discussion regarding O'Reilly's perceived racist intent. This belongs on the O'Reilly page, not here. Other than O'Reilly's whining, no other notable, reliable source felt CNN was wrong to report on this.- Hal Raglan 19:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Juan Williams also scolded CNN for this. It is notable. Please do not vandalize. Arnabdas 15:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, O'Reilly's comments were controversial. CNN's reporting on same was not. Just because O'Reilly and fellow Fox News contributor Williams "scolded" CNN for reporting the news doesn't make their whining notable as an actual controversy. Also, please read wikipedia's policy regarding what constitutes vandalism before hurling accusations against other editors you disagree with. Thank you.-Hal Raglan 01:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
O'Reilly's comments were controversial according to CNN based on a media matters interpretation. CNN is hardly coming up smelling like roses to many about this. Based on your logic, we'd have to take out Jon Stewart's "whining" about CNN too. They are both similar situations. Jon Stewart making a point is equal to Bill O'Reilly making a point with all things being equal. They should either both be there or both not be there. However, second your note on vandalism. Arnabas, please do not call reverting of your edits vandalism. Assume good faith and make a convincing argument to justify your inclusion and not take shots at editors who disagree with you. MrMurph101 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Was it indeed only CNN who covered O'Reilly's comments? If thats the case, who were the "many" who felt CNN was wrong to report this? Outside of blogs, are there reputable, notable sources who criticized CNN for this? I don't agree with you regarding the Jon Stewart section...Stewart's comments, as noted and properly sourced, helped lead to the cancellation of the show he criticized. That in itself legitimizes its inclusion here, as far as I'm concerned. However, the Stewart section could be rewritten in a way to indicate, with proper citations, that other notable individuals/reliable sources covered the Stewart commentary, to better indicate the controversy (if any) that ensued. As far as the O'Reilly/CNN section, it must be demonstrated that there was a genuine controversy centered on CNN. If, as you say, "many" questioned their reporting, then it should be relatively easy to find some representative examples and cite them. Simply saying that O'Reilly and Williams complained about CNN isn't good enough.-Hal Raglan 13:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll cede to you that the Steward incidident gets more weight since his comments led to the cancellation of crossfire. However, O'Reilly draws the most viewers in American cable news and something he says does merit some weight. If the bar set for inclusions means that someone else needs to report it, I can agree to that. I am not ardently for this inclusion but wouldn't revert it if I already saw it there, notwithstanding a bad POV presentation of it. My own POV on this was a politially correct mountain was made out of a molehill and O'Reilly was somewhat correct about CNN being desperate for ratings. Now back to the point about just having O'Reilly "whine" about CNN. (By the way I do not think either Stewart or O'Reilly are necessarily whining and just criticising CNN). My question is if O'Reilly, the highest rated personality on American cable news for better or worse, does not merit inclusion for his reporting or opinion on any issue, doesn't this mean that whatever any American cable says(which does not get reported elsewhere) must not merit any inclusion. We would have to revert anything the Olbermann, John Gibson, Larry King, Neil Cavuto, Paula Zahn, Tucker Carlson, etc. have to say. There would probably be a lot of removing going on if we go by the standard that is held to what O'Reilly says goes. However, would you agree to this inclusion if the article's title was Criticism of CNN? MrMurph101 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
O'Reilly is inarguably an extremely notable individual and his criticism certainly carries weight. In this particular occasion, I don't believe his comments are worthy of inclusion because his response appears to me to be strictly self-defensive, not indicative of any actual controversy. Now, if another reporter had been scrutinized by CNN and O'Reilly attacked the news channel in response to their coverage, that might be a different story, as long as other, equally notable individuals also responded in kind. If this article were renamed, as you suggest, my argument would no longer be relevant and O'Reilly's criticism of the network would warrant a section here. I'm not in favor of such a title change because I suspect this article would quickly become a monstrously long list of mostly frivolous criticisms.-Hal Raglan 02:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I put in a briefer, hopefully more NPOV version in the main article's "controversy and criticisms" section. MrMurph101 03:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. Concisely worded w/out any noticeable POV issues.-Hal Raglan 03:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think that's all that needs to be said. There does not seem to be any need to rehash the whole thing in the article. MrMurph101 04:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

John Cena and Steriods

Is it worth mentioning that the WWE has criticized CNN for editing their interview with John Cena, to make it seem like he used steriods? Here's a link to the WWE's criticisms of CNN: http://www.wwe.com/inside/cenaoncnn/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No because he is on them he tested positive for steroids —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.106.144 (talk) 17:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Proof? Tazz 19:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

why do you think he lost the title —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.106.144 (talk) 04:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dropped it to the lines of a torn muscle or something to that nature; in addition, when I say proof, I mean direct links to proof from belevable resources and not from gag or gossip sites. Tazz 09:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about whether or not he took steroids, but about CNN pretty much taking his interview out of context —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.180.69 (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

watch the so call uneditd version the woman interviewing John cena is Torrie wilson and the place that their at is in WWE home base so the video a fake

No, that wasn't Torrie Wilson at all. Looked nothing like her. --MrDeePay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.53.85.96 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

entire "Allegations of leniency towards the Bush administration" is garbage

Can you say original research and editorial spindoctoring? How did they report on the bush debacle with the pretzel? I'm sure it has far reaching implications the should be expanded upon.66.190.29.150 (talk) 03:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Baby Milk Factory story

I saw no mention of CNN's reporting (Peter Arnette doing the story) about how the U.S. allegedly bombed a "baby milk factory", and how the story was easily debunked (the story was based on a hand-written sign, IN ENGLISH, designating the suspected weapons plant as a "baby milk factory"). Ynot4tony (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of website promotion or partisan website?

I tried to add anti dash cnn dot com, which I have no relation with, to show how CNN change the pictures relating to unrest in Tibet. This is not to promote the site. Somehow the addition kept being removed. The only way to be fair is to let voices of all sides be heard, and let the reader decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.11.111.249 (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Sites like that, which serve only as an attack on a person or entitiy are almost always not allowed. Furthermore that is a personal website, and falls under links to be avoided. I sympathize with your point of view and that of Tibet, but WP cannot be a player in this issue. Feel free to add material from a reliable source which discusses this issue. Arzel (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

20, Bias on CNN bias on China, those are not allegation from one Chinese newspaper, but facts widely reported online and in many Chinese, HKness and Taiwanese blogs, websites, newspapers and on youtube, go to anti-cnn.com, CNN is twisting facts, cropping photo to fit its anti-chinese agenda.

Tibet coverage

The section about the controversial Tibet coverage seems to have been written by one such "angry netizen"... I've placed a NPOV banner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jelle564 (talk • contribs)

I think the problem has been fixed. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Racist $ 1.3 billion suit vs. CNN and Jack

On April 24, 2008, beautician Liang Shubing and teacher Li Lilan sued commentator Jack Cafferty and CNN $1.3 billion damages ($1 per person in China), in New York, for "violating the dignity and reputation of the Chinese people". At the April 9 CNN's "The Situation Room," Cafferty remarked, "I think they're basically the same bunch of goons and thugs they've been for the last 50 years; and the United States imported Chinese-made "junk with the lead paint on them and the poisoned pet food." Further, amid China's Foreign Ministry demand for an apology, 14 lawyers filed A similar suit in Beijing.[1][2] --Florentino floro (talk) 05:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ www.ibtimes.com, CNN Faces $1.3 Bln Lawsuit - $1 per person in China
  2. ^ reuters.com, CNN now sued for $1.3 billion - $1 per person in China

Image copyright problem with File:Cnn.svg

The image File:Cnn.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Resolved. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama favoritism

a lot of people have said CNN heavily favored Obama. wouldn't that be a controversy?74.130.170.253 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

To which "a lot of people" do you refer? Do you have some reliable sources to demonstrate those claims? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be tough to show this; There is massive media support for Obama, there was the opposite for Bush... the "a lot of people" probably refer to the millions staging "Tea Parties", etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.197.148 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
American news media is corporate owned and in it for the ratings. Have you forgotten that CNN and much of the mainstream media gave President Bush positive coverage for much of his first term and neither did the White House Press Corps directly challenged his policies? They only started criticising Bush in his second term when public opinion shifted against him. The news will generally be cosy cosy with whoever happens to be in charge at the moment, Republican or Democrat. You need citations for reliable sources to support your inclusion of "Obama favouritism" in the article. The tea partiers are a conservative/libertarian grassroots movement and are not reliable as source. It's just like if I decided to cite MoveOn or George Soros as proof that there is a massive conservative opposition from the media and talk radio. That's not how Wikipedia works.

70.74.238.65 (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Michael Moore

Something about the Michael Moore incident involving CNN's chief medical correspondent Sanjay Gupta should be added. CNN had to apologize to Michael Moore for slandering his film "Sicko" and misrepresenting their "expert" pundit http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/ http://www.michaelmoore.com/sicko/news/article.php?id=1001797.91.175.129 (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I should add that this is noteworthy not just because it made the news, and involves prominent left-leaning criticism of CNN, but because it was a major factor in Sanjay Gupta withdrawing his name for the position of Surgeon General97.91.175.129 (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not disagreeing, because I think you might have a valid point here, but wouldn't that justification more appropriately indicate mention in Gupta's biography rather than CNN? I'm not saying it shouldn't go in, but I think there might be a better argument for inclusion out there. I think a few more diverse sources would help answer any questions about it... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because it involves a pre-produced video made by CNN as well as the host Wolf Blitzer; not just Gupta```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.173.58 (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Suppression of Blitzer's AIPAC history

This article does not discuss Wolf Blitzer's history with AIPAC, specifically it does not mention the suppression of this fact in mainstream U.S. sources, such as the lengthy Wolf Blitzer bio at CNN.com.[1] I watched a show on Al-jazeera yesterday called "The Listening Post" which discussed the recent firing from CNN of Octavia Nasr. In that segment this omission in CNN's bio of Blitzer was highlighted. I'm also making this request at the Wolf Blitzer article. Should this article not mention something about this issue? __meco (talk) 10:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion...

Why don't we collect all of the small sections and place them into a "Misc. Controversies" and keep the larger controversies in their own sections. Would make the page look a lot less messy. 64.234.0.101 (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The allegations of bias against CNN belong under the entry for "CNN" just as they appear for Fox News

The fact that the Wikipedia entry for Fox contains allegations of bias in the very intro to the entry and is featured in the entry and brought up again and again, I was shocked when I searched for CNN and under that entry found a very factual account of the history of CNN. I noted in another search for "CNN Bias" that this entry contained those assertions. I am upset by the fact that Fox's entry is splattered with allegations of bias so as to inform any uninformed reader that they must be skeptical of things reported by FOX, yet CNN's entry could have been written by their own press agent.

Wouldn't it be fair to move the data INSIDE the entry "CNN Controversies" inside and as part of the entry for CNN, rather than to bury it in a section most won't find without a specific search.

The impression left by this inequity is that Fox is biased and CNN is not. We know in fact they each have their biases. Please consider the correction, unless your agenda IS to slander the only media outlet on Television that is NOT left wing biased. I suspect it is...prove me wrong.

I do not want to set up an account but will publish my email which is 75.70.19.211 (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Daveofdenver@yahoo.com.


On Amanpour bias

This section: "In May 2006, Amanpour said, in an interview on Larry King Live, "the war in Iraq has basically turned out to be a disaster." Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly criticized this statement, saying "reporters are supposed to report, analysts are supposed to analyze."[38]" seems a bit weird to me. If it's an interview she's supposed to say her opinion, no? Why is O'Reilly critizising that, and why is it noteworthy enough to go in an encyclopaedia? Swooch (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

O'Reilly's point, which if you read the transcript was agreed to by both his guests, including the anti-war one, is that it was an unprofessional thing to do, because it detracted from her ability to appear impartial. Whether it's noteworthy or not is a matter of opinion, though. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
I guess I'm from a different culture. I could not really envision this becoming a controvercy where I live (not that it seems to be here, really) since it probably would not have been considered a political statement to that extent. As for noteworthy, I think many "controversies in american news/politics" here on wikipedia are really just pundits commenting on events or statements. I prolly won't do anything about this without looking over a lot else. - And frankly, being on the other side of the world, I'm not sure I care enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swooch (talk • contribs) 11:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
That both sides of a Fox guest agree with the host isn't exactly convincing evidence. The reason itself makes clear how ridiculous the requirement is: It's about the "ability to appear impartial". --93.203.220.198 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed this section. We need independent third party coverage of a controversy to deem it significant enough for inclusion. It's not enough that O'Reilly and some others complained, we can't document all of their complaints. Did this particular complaint of theirs become an actual controversy or was it immediately forgotten? This is what we need a third party reliable source to document. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Is Twitter unreliable?

CNN had in the past fired one of its journalist Octavia Nasr based on a controversial tweet. Was CNN acting based on an unreliable source? The logic that twitter is unreliable is preposterous. Sagarika Ghose update is being removed again and again by giving the logic that twitter is unreliable. --Corruptcongress (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to double-post this. Anyone can feel free to reply to the original question: here.  7  04:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
7, in fairness, I think that Corruptcongress is making an argument for why their edits to this article, regarding Twitter, should stand. this edit - which, as I write, is still in the article.
I think it should be removed, because Twitter is not a reliable source according to the Wikipedia guidance and policy.
Corruptcongress, what others think about Twitter is absolutely beside the point; such sources have been extensively discussed on Wikipedia. Whilst we try to avoid having strict rules, in the vast majority of cases, information based on tweets is not accepted by the community. If other media - newspapers, perhaps - had written a storey about the tweet, that would be another matter; however, adding information soley based upon a reference to Twitter is inappropriate, because it is a form of original research.  Chzz  ►  09:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Balanced coverage

providing less balanced coverage than other news networks such as Aljazeera[31] and the BBC.[32]
Very funny. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya coverage (or cover up?)

Nobody thinks Qaddafi was OK, but a video with reporter Dan Rivers on "Bodies abandoned in Tripoli hospital" are not willing to uncover what the horrifying images are about. Giving some hints Rivers concludes: "Its not clear how these people died or who they are... These are mysteries that will go to the grave with them." Why? Can't he explain it? Can't he speculate?

Then, further down the video survivors are found believed to be Qaddafi loyalists. Hmm. Ends with a father crying over his living son who looks at him with wonder, while he says: "Why should Muslims kill Muslims?". Rivers narrates: ...child with a bullet in his chest, shot outside Ghadaffi's compound.

In the next video with Alex Thomson "Grim face of war in Libya", some of the same images and sounds are shown. But this time in perhaps two context's one as the last survivors are taken by the red cross, the other as rebels break into closed parts of the hospital. Then you see an edited picture that stops short without showing the conclusion. Are we witnessing a war crime cover-up? Thomson's narration reads: "Prisoners emerging from this chaotic fighting". The image shows a beaten Qaddafi soldier crying and having money taken from him. Then an Islamic looking warrior is seen in a car yelling into a prisoner's face to repeat "Libyin Kul Lahoud". The prisoner repeats the phrase. The warrior then yells while waving his fist: "Umarabush Il Ghadafi... the sound is cut off for the narration but the prisoner is seen and faintly heard repeating the 2nd phrase. With the background images of people with raised hands facing a wall some turning around in terror (obviously Qaddafi soldiers) then some footage of man squatting, turning in horror, then forced a backwards faced helmet on his head and tied. The viewer gets the impression of watching an execution. Thomson's narration reads: But some such soldiers were killed before getting a chance to be treated properly.

Just as an arm holding some sharp objects is seen moving towards the prisoners face, the image and sound are cut and the sounds of an angry mob chanting is heard with the scene of a military truck and the narration moves on to: "We spoke exclusively to the rebel commander who's lead much of the fighting in Tripoly...

Anybody wish to comment? פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at a Fox news video titled Could Al Qaeda Obtain Qaddafi Regime's Weapons? it reveals that the exclusively given interview with the rebel commander was in fact an interview with Abdul Hakim Belhaj, the ('Emir') leader of the Al Quaida affiliated LIFJ terrorist organization set to create an Islamic state in Libya! It is also made clear in that video, that black skin is the sign of Qaddafi's mercenaries from central Africa. So now it is clear what has been shown on the first video. The "freed prisoners" are actually beaten Qaddafi mercenaries apparently being executed!
CNN does not have direct links to their video, so I just gave the description without the links.
פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Conservative Bias?

The top of the article said that CNN has a conservative bias to a much lesser extent, but I have found sources that say otherwise, has anyone actually watched CNN and noticed they tend to favor Democrats 2:1? Still, I just wanted to point this out.

That was another IP user who also removed the 'citation needed' tag. Given the nature of the statement, it's very likely the user's own bias. --93.203.220.198 (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia! Facts are irrelevant here, FYIWhatzinaname (talk) 07:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blue Screen Saudi Arabia

Should the Persian Gulf War section mention the fake news story that CNN made up during the Gulf War? Footage is available of the whole thing, including the acting of the reporters, and so on. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The clip is repeated over several times in your video "evidence". Even many conspiracy forums has ruled this out. The reporter has spoken out about this. The dramaticniss of the situation may have been slightly exaggerated but was not a blue screen fake. Justinhu12 (talk) 09:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, it looks like the left man thought he smelled something, and they just happened to be standing in front of a blue screen. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on CNN controversies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Leaked debate questions

  1. "The Friday before the debate, at about 5 p.m, the producer, Danelle Garcia, called her: CNN had picked one of her questions." East Village Magazine
  2. "... [Mikki] Ward and [LeeAnne] Walters identified Garcia — a producer for Anderson Cooper — as the employee with whom they communicated ahead of the debate. ..." Right Wing site Daily Caller--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on CNN controversies. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on CNN controversies. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNN_controversies/Archive_1&oldid=1086312376"