I think CNN is a mixed bag. John King, Gloria Borger, David Gregory, and Erin Burnett are all decent and the rest varies from ok to garbage. Fox News has declined a lot from where they were post 9/11.
JFC, people. I never said CNN is fake news. I said they are biased, like every other news channel, because they are in it for ratings. That's it.
Media today has become a business, and it has ruined true journalism.
The problem is your use of "bias," especially in the same sentence as you call Fox News biased. It's not unreasonable to infer you're equating the two in that context.
Here's the thing. CNN may be sensationalist, clickbait-esque, and ratings driven, but that doesn't mean it's politically biased.
And that is incorrect. They are not equal. There are indeed different levels of bias/sensationalism/etc. However, trash is trash.
I do like Anderson Cooper and Don Lemon.
With barely a vote to spare early Saturday morning, the Senate passed a tax bill confirming that the Republican leaders’ primary goal is to enrich the country’s elite at the expense of everybody else, including future generations who will end up bearing the cost. The approval of this looting of the public purse by corporations and the wealthy makes it a near certainty that President Trump will sign this or a similar bill into law in the coming days.
The bill is expected to add more than $1.4 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, a debt that will be paid by the poor and middle class in future tax increases and spending cuts to Medicare, Social Security and other government programs. Its modest tax cuts for the middle class disappear after eight years. And up to 13 million people stand to lose their health insurance because the bill makes a big change to the Affordable Care Act.
Yet Republicans somehow found a way to give a giant and permanent tax cut to corporations like Apple, General Electric and Goldman Sachs, saving those businesses tens of billions of dollars.
I couldn't name specifics, honestly. AP obviously, general newspaper sites (no don't know which way most papers lean).
I have an issue of people saying Fox News is biased (they are) and I say CNN is biased (they are) and then being told "false equivalency." Um.......wrong That's calling a spade a spade. Anything different, that shows bias. Just sayin'.
It is false equivalency.
Fox is outright propaganda. CNN might have a very slight lean to the left but is mostly neutral.
Last quote says it all. Fox inserts itself or manipulates info for a purpose. CNN manipulates it for sensationalism to feed its audience of anyone not watching Fox (ie those who are not right wing nutbags.)JFC, people. I never said CNN is fake news. I said they are biased, like every other news channel, because they are in it for ratings. That's it.
Media today has become a business, and it has ruined true journalism.
CNN is biased. While they are not all-out 100% blatant like Fox is, they do lean left.
My issue with the recent posts here:
The whale is a large animal.
The Clydesdale horse is a large animal.
The masses then say: ZOMG you're saying they are the same size! You are an idiot!
Last quote says it all. Fox inserts itself or manipulates info for a purpose. CNN manipulates it for sensationalism to feed its audience of anyone not watching Fox (ie those who are not right wing nutbags.)
Woke up today wondering what would happen if there was an actual news station that just did dry journalism. Facts, not sensationalism. The populace is like a bell curve- the nutty extremists on either end and the majority more moderate. How is it not a money maker to give facts that feed both sides of moderation?
People on both sides would accuse it of being for the other side. I think both CNN and Fox have moved to the right in recent times. This has been a positive thing for CNN and negative for Fox. I don’t watch it a lot but get the sense MSNBC has gone further left. The family that owns Comcast/NBC are very tight with the Clinton’s.
Or it wasn’t
Woke up today wondering what would happen if there was an actual news station that just did dry journalism. Facts, not sensationalism. The populace is like a bell curve- the nutty extremists on either end and the majority more moderate. How is it not a money maker to give facts that feed both sides of moderation?
Last quote says it all. Fox inserts itself or manipulates info for a purpose. CNN manipulates it for sensationalism to feed its audience of anyone not watching Fox (ie those who are not right wing nutbags.)
Woke up today wondering what would happen if there was an actual news station that just did dry journalism. Facts, not sensationalism. The populace is like a bell curve- the nutty extremists on either end and the majority more moderate. How is it not a money maker to give facts that feed both sides of moderation?
Well, today it would air facts about Russia and the tax bill. Those facts wouldn’t be favorable to the republicans so Brent, etc would say that they lean left. The republican bias could never see past it- and right now the main headline news is difficult to spin positively for them.
Not saying it wouldn’t happen the other way, just using today’s headlines as an example.
If they are facts, then they are facts. Period. Today's journalism is filled with opinions, however. Just give me the facts.
"Trump dealt with Russians during the election."
That would be a fact. That's not anti-Republican, or pro-Democrat. That is a stone cold fact.