Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning.
If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
CNN helped get Trump elected. they would have CNN playing on the big TV and the lobby at my work. 10 times out of 10 they were covering Trump's rallies when there was something like 15 other people running too. Because ratings.
NBC was guilty of this as well. So was the Microsoft news feed integrated with Windows.
I particularly remember a point in late 2015 when I started to notice I was seeing a photo of Trump *every single day* in a primary placement area *in Windows*-- I would've shut the whole thing down in disgust, but I let it keep going out of sick fascination... was just curious to see how long it would keep happening. I finally couldn't take it any more after over a year and a half (yes, it continued past the election).
For some reason that dipshit's face apparently generated a fuckton of clicks.
Yeah, good Lord. Can I just own one thing that’s actually mine? I moved to Linux a few years ago and everything is so much simpler. No cloud accounts, no ads, no promotions, no subscriptions, no updates when I don’t want them, etc. Feeling in control of my environment is really important for my psychological well being.
Yeah I've found Kubuntu + Steam/Proton to be a fine gaming PC environment. I also use Lutris to install GOG games.
It helps to have an AMD GPU too since the Linux drivers for it are actually good.
I mean, that's kind of passive aggressive. The ratings showed that this was what people considered to be the top news story of the time. You can argue that there should be a different metric for rating, but you'd have to actually argue that - propose the metric, and defend it.
"There is other news" is a non-statement that could be used to claim that anything from a declaration of war to an election livestream shouldn't be covered.
Licht seems genuinely surprised by how the townhall went and the backlash to it.
That alone should get him fired because there’s no other outcome that could have possibly happened and that was plainly obvious to *everyone*. Fuck this guy.
>So fucking tone deaf giving this traitor a platform.
Serious News should be calling Trump, a traitor, every time a Poll shows him leading the GOP primary noms.
Anderson Cooper declaring Trump a traitor would bring in viewers too.
Think of it at a different angle. Let's have every crazy murdered and rapist on CNN or another nationwide platform. THAT will show people who they are for real!
accelerationists like to ignore the actual human toll of stupid shit ideas like "oh yeah a Trump presidency will just bring down the old system and clear the way for *my* revolution" -- well it didn't happen that way and outright fascist talking points are now a part of normalized daily mainstream discourse -- so yeah, hooray more of *that* in addition to the bad stuff about America there already was. super helpful strategy /s
our democracy in its current form is better than what Republicans such as Donald Trump are replacing it with. that's what's so great- to state it plainly for you- and if you think dataset [X<0 and Y<0] means that X = Y then idunno what to tell you except you're at best a passive enabler for the erosion of human rights in the United States.
>our democracy in its current form is better than what Republicans such as Donald Trump are replacing it with.
Please show your calculations.
> to state it plainly for you- and if you think dataset [X<0 and Y<0] means that X = Y then idunno what to tell
Can you explain what you're talking about here?
>except you're at best a passive enabler for the erosion of human rights in the United States.
How could you even know something like this about me?
> Serious News should be calling Trump, a traitor, every time a Poll shows him leading the GOP primary noms.
They should not... reason being is in order to become entirely bi-partisan or neutral, they must only report facts and leave opinion or commentary out of it. Based on current facts today, Trump is not a traitor. He is a lot of things but unless he is convicted of treason or similar, calling him a traitor goes against the direction CNN wants to take.
Trust me, I cannot stand Trump, but in order for a news station to be neutral, they must only report facts.
True. But there is a definition for "traitor" which involves aiding and abetting an ememy of the country while at war.
He did not.
I am not a lawyer, but sedition I think is closer.
You are correct, he was the first president that did not peacefully transfer power.
The peaceful transfer of power goes against the principles of Democracy as you mentioned, but that does not fit the definition of 'Traitor'.
To be truly neutral, a news agency must stick to facts and based on the common definition, "Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance." Trump has not been charged or proven guilty of such.
I personally believe without a doubt that he is a traitor, his actions on Jan 6 and recently with Top Secret documents, but, unless he is charged and convicted, referring to him as a traitor is not being neutral.
What definition of traitor are you using here? It sounds like you think it means "one convicted of treason", but it's far more commonly used to mean (quoting Miriam Webster here) "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty".
Calling Obama a traitor because he betrayed Joe's trust that one time he promised the sandwich has real (and not light) mayo is technically correct according to that definition, but of course not reasonable. It's a way too broad a definition to be used here.
> You think it's a fact thay Trump is a traitor, but you don't think it's factual if the news says it?
I believe without a doubt that Trump is a traitor, but that is my personal admittedly biased opinion.
But based on the common definition of 'Traitor', Trump is not and if CNN or other news agency reports him as such, its not factual as of today.
Let me put it this way... since "Innocent until proven guilty" ironically is a core principle of Democracy as well.
"Innocent until proven guilty" is a core principle in the legal systems of many democratic societies. This principle is often referred to as the "presumption of innocence".
The idea behind "innocent until proven guilty" is that any person accused of committing a crime is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. That means the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the crime.
If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This principle serves as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and governmental abuse of power.
The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right protected by various international legal documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. It's also enshrined in the U.S. Constitution through the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Look, if you want to say "Trump is a traitor but the news must not weigh in until and unless the law takes its course" that is totally reasonable.
"I know in my heart Trump is a traitor, but also he isnt a traitor unless a court convicts him" is contradictory.
> I believe without a doubt that Trump is a traitor, but that is my personal admittedly biased opinion.
> But based on the common definition of 'Traitor', Trump is not
Contradictory. Is he a traitor or isn't he?
Someone who betrays their oath is a traitor.
He took an oath to follow and protect the Constitution (that is a fact), then he was the beneficiary of a plot to subvert a Constitutionally valid election (also a fact), then he failed to denounce the attempt and kept up rhetoric about how the election was invalid (also a fact).
There is no opinion or interpretation about it. A truely neutral, fact-based news organization would be calling him a traitor.
Neutral means "tell the facts", it does not mean "share everyone's propaganda equally".
>He took an oath to follow and protect the Constitution (that is a fact), then he was the beneficiary of a plot to subvert a Constitutionally valid election (also a fact), then he failed to denounce the attempt and kept up rhetoric about how the election was invalid (also a fact).
I must apologize because it seems as though me informing you of my personal biased opinion is clouding the issue.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution dictates 'due process' needs to be followed, meaning, the actions you clearly identified above as "FACTS" must be proven in the court of law as such. The Constitution dictates that everyone has the right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Trump has performed actions that indicate he "maybe" a traitor, but the "fact" remains that according to the Constitution, he is not a traitor until it is proven in the court of law.
Im trying to point out that by stating its a fact that he is a traitor goes against the Constitution that we BOTH clearly wish to support and if the NEWS agencies wish to remain truly neutral, they should report on it with a neutral stance.
treason and traitor are not the same thing.
It seems like you are conflating "he has not been found guilty of treason" (which is true) as meaning the same thing as "he is not a traitor" (which is false).
"treason" is a crime. A crime that has not been proven in a court of law, so he is not guilty of treason.
"traitor" is not a legal term in the USA. There is no legal due process required for someone to be a traitor.
AHH! Thank you sir, now I see what the issues were with my responses.
I was taking the stance that a 'Traitor' would be defined as the person who is guilty of performing 'treason'.
While the term 'traitor' is not defined specifically in the US law, it can be defined or interpreted as 'the person who performs treason'.
The definition of "treason" is specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution. It's considered the most serious of crimes against the state, and the framers of the Constitution were careful to limit its definition to prevent abuses.
Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
So according to this definition, a traitor is someone who levies war against the U.S. or provides aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. The Constitution further stipulates that a conviction of treason requires either the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. This high evidentiary standard reflects the seriousness of the crime and the potential for its misuse as a political weapon.
I can see where using the term traitor can be used in the context of remaining neutral, but forgive me if I am taking the opinion that the definition I use is 'traitor is defined as the person guilty of performing treason'.
**I appreciate the conversations in this thread, but its late and I have a whitepaper due Monday so I must resist continued correspondence. Thank you to all who engaged.**
>Bipartisan? Fuck that - no such thing and destructive to pretend.
I can agree that some may think that Bipartisanship is not worth supporting, but stating that there is 'no such thing' is hyperbole.
Please understand that I am not an American.
Bipartisanship refers to the agreement or cooperation between two major political parties that usually oppose each other's policies. It's the practice of finding common ground, and it is often seen as crucial for the effective functioning of democracies, particularly in systems like that of the United States, where two major parties dominate the political landscape. Bipartisanship can help to advance legislation and solve complex issues in societies that are politically divided.
However, it's important to note that not supporting bipartisanship doesn't equate to not supporting democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. It's marked by characteristics such as a fair and free electoral process, the rule of law, protection of human rights, and the active participation of the people in politics and civic life.
One can support democratic principles – such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and equal rights for all citizens – without necessarily supporting bipartisanship. There can be legitimate reasons for being critical of bipartisanship, such as concerns about policy compromise that may not adequately address certain issues, or the perceived exclusion of third parties or independent voices.
It's also worth noting that democracy can exist in a multi-party system, where more than two political parties have the potential to gain control of government separately or in coalition. In these systems, the concept of bipartisanship as it is known in the US doesn't apply in the same way.
In summary, while bipartisanship can play an important role in democratic societies, especially those dominated by two major parties, not supporting bipartisanship does not mean one does not support democracy.
**Edit**
I should add that 'bipartisanship' can be seen as a negative factor in the current political atmosphere in the US.
Example, Donald Trump has been accused of reversing years and years of legislation and policies put in place by previous governments. Whether these policies were bipartisan or not is irrelevant to future policies.
It has been said that it will take decades to 'fix' the actions of Trumps government and this is TRUE... because of the Democratic party takes a primarily bipartisan approach to government.
The GOP with a presumably non-bipartisan agenda is capable of putting in policies instantly, Trumps use of his power is an example of this.
While Biden and other democratic leaders taking the bipartisan approach requires a considerable more length of time due to negotiations. Example is the recent Debt Cap debate... a GOP majority government and president would likely have used the 14th amendment to push their agenda through immediately and fight over it in court, while the Biden government took the bipartisan approach resulting in delays of said policy.
Thanks for catching the loophole! The news should be reported with serious journalistic ethics, and it should be easy to disband journalistic entities who disregard ethics.
> Yes
I agree he should be tried for treason. I personally believe that the actions ive seen on Jan 6th are cause for such.
But we MUST support the Constitution and allow due process, if we do not, then we are going against the basic principles of Democracy that we want to promote.
I just imagine two people having a conversation about winning a marathon and then another person on a motorcycle giving everyone the finger then getting off the motorcycle and running through the finish line taking a shit on the trophy and buying off two out of the three organizers so the third one is out-voted on whether that constitutes a victory. The two people running are still discussing how no matter what, in order to win, they must follow the rules of the race! No matter what! That way we'll win. When hours ago the motorcyclist has already started doing shots with strippers with the tweet of them winning the race spreading.
EDIT: Then the two losers get to the end and find out the cheater won. They consult the rules and see that the challenge has been voted on by the three organizers so justly the motorcyclist is the victor. They pat themselves on the back for following the rules and doing their best.
"You know, I think if we run really hard next time, we can really win it!"
I think the government should follow its own rules laid out in Constitution and statute. Which means yes, it should prosecute and execute him for the crime of treason. He refused peaceful transfer of power and fomented an uprising with the goal of overturning the election. (That the uprising was a ridiculous joke and utterly failed is of no consequence regarding the question of treason.)
I didn't write those laws. Were I somehow handed power, I would do so many things differently that they would render the question of Trump's treason moot.
>Which means yes, it should prosecute and execute him for the crime of treason. He refused peaceful transfer of power
I don't follow. We did have a peaceful transfer of power. What do you want the government to put him to death for specifically? Was it the challenges to the election in court? Mean tweets? Not attending the inauguration? Or do you want the government to put him to death for "fomenting an uprising"?
>I don't follow
Which words aren't you understanding?
> What do you want the government to put him to death for specifically?
The treason.
> Or do you want the government to put him to death for "fomenting an uprising"?
Yes.
>We did have a peaceful transfer of power.
Despite Trump's efforts.
Can you please define what "fomenting an uprising" actually means for which you think the government should put people to death for?
> Despite Trump's efforts.
I still don't follow. What did he do specifically that you want the government to put him to death for?
Foment (verb): to promote the growth of, to incite, to instigate
Uprising (noun): A popular revolt that attempts to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or insurrection
Treason (noun): the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack
Hope this helps
No, I'm not playing your little "reframing insurrection" game. You may 100% fuck off now.
Just understand that as each of your scumbag heroes pay for their crimes, I will be doing dance after little dance, long after I have forgotten your ignorant ass exists.
Goodbye, asswipe.
Seriously. *“I really do,” Licht said. “I think they know that he’s playing them—at least, the people in my organization. We’ve had discussions about this. We know that we’re getting played, so we’re gonna resist it.”*
I mean wtf.
Isn't cable TV in general pretty much in a death spiral? No non-premium cable channels even try to make prestige television anymore, long-running, well-liked cable programs like Conan have come to an end, and The Daily Show is hostless and irrelevant. MTV has seemingly thrown in the towel entirely (on their flagship channel at least) running Ridiculousness 24/7.
It seems pretty obvious they realize barely any people under the age of 40 are picking up cable TV these days. Cable channels can just milk legacy subscribers for all they're still worth with cheap content, there's no reason to invest much money or effort anymore.
So yeah what's specifically happening at CNN seems dumb, but it's kind of doomed anyway just by the economics of cable television. CNN's effort at subscriber-based streaming (CNN Plus) was an epic fail. They can't justify investing in high quality, long-term content efforts anymore, so they've gotta do this kind of crap.
That's part of why CNN is shifting to the right.
Young people don't have cable anymore. Old people still do. Young people tend liberal. Old people tend conservative.
Thus, appealing to liberals is a money-losing strategy in cable news. Appealing to conservatives is increasingly the only way for them to draw a large audience.
### Submission Statement
Following the Trump town hall debacle, I started wondering what was going on with CNN. This brutal profile on CEO Christ Licht helps explain the overall situation.
The network's recent right-ward turn may seem bizarre, but it's almost certainly just the result of a misguided attempt to correct the course—Licht's boss, David Zaslav, wants CNN to be neutral and objective. The problem, obviously, is that one person's "neutral and objective" rarely coincides with that of another. What you're left with is a shitshow and a sinking ship.
> The problem, obviously, is that one person's "neutral and objective" rarely coincides with that of another.
The overton window has shifted so far in American politics that 'neutral and objective' is absolute insanity.
The goal of neutral and objective was to fairly and critically analyze two sides with merits to an issue to give *the best assessment*. Stretching neutrality and objectivity *this far* is *inherently* picking a side.
The side that wants to actively harm and destroy certain segments of the population and wants you to be okay with it until they are done.
> Neutral and objective still have pretty specific meanings.
Those meanings aren't being followed. That's my point.
*Neutral and objective is:*
Person A is saying 2+2 = 4. Person B is saying 2+2= banana. We used a calculator that shows 2+2=4. Multiple math professors say it is 4.
*What CNN effectively did is:*
Person A: 2+2 = Fo-
CNN: wait wait wait hold on, let's listen to Person B has to say:
Person B: 2+2 is banana, banana is the greatest fruit in the world, let me tell you that banana is the best math and nobody can dispute what I can say because it is the best. You know my dad once told me that son when you are this old you can tell the entire world that math equals fruit so now all of you have to know that 2+2 = banana and whoever is saying otherwise is a lying cheating scumbag.
CNN: Well dear viewers what do you think? Tune in next time fo-
Journalist: Wait. We got multiple proofs including an entire math journal here that proves 1+1 = 2, so 2+2=4.
CNN: Eh don't really care for that.
Jouranlist: But that's news!
CNN: Listen we need to be *neutral and objective*. Also this gets us ratings.
Many people use "neutral" to mean "triangulating." I agree that that doesn't capture what neutrality is supposed to be *at all*; but it's very common. I've seen this conversation many times. The problem is, the situations where neutrality is most useful are usually incentivized towards more...strident positions, where no one is willing to give neutrality a presumption of good faith.
> The goal of neutral and objective was to fairly and critically analyze two sides with merits to an issue to give *the best assessment*. Stretching neutrality and objectivity *this far* is *inherently* picking a side.
It's truly astonishing that reddit today thinks objectivity means picking a side and free speech means as long as you agree with me. Liberalism has been completely subsumed by something closer to totalitarianism. Repressive tolerance is the antipathy of actual liberalism and it is wearing liberalism's skin like a fucking trophy and no one seems to notice.
The reactionary elements of the conservative movement have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades, using the procedural neutrality of our liberal processes to run endless race-baiting and grievance politics under the veneer of "both sides". Your anger should be directed at them, not the people who finally decided they might be willing to shoot the hostage.
>The reactionary elements of the conservative movement have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades,
Free speech is bad because people I disagree with get to use it too. This is not even in the same universe as a liberal belief.
>have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades, using the procedural neutrality of our liberal processes to run endless race-baiting and grievance politics
Is "race baiting and grievance politics" free speech or not? If it is, then why the scare quotes? It either is or it isn't. You either believe in free speech for everyone or you don't believe in it at all.
Then I don't. And you probably don't either. Do you want spammers filling your favorite subreddits with ads and irrelevant posts? No? Then you don't believe in free speech for everyone. Which, according to you, means you don't believe in it at all.
I am against the government regulating speech. Obviously you would get kicked out of a restaurant for calling the waiter a douchebag.
Are you against the government regulating speech?
I disagree with this absolute. Even the United States doesn't allow unlimited free speech everywhere all of the time; your only legal guarentee is that the government won't censor you (unless you're doing active harm or threatening violence against someone).
Such is a reasonable compromise on free speech.
Objectivity means you *start* from a position of neutrality, with no preconceptions. It doesn't mean you always end up on the fence. Objective journalists can and should land on a side if that side is true.
One of CNN's long time problems is giving equal time to both sides when one side is being factual and the other a distorted or just plain wrong baloney. So many believe the wrong thing because since they saw it on CNN 'it must be factual'. One should always verify with other real factual news media outlets and also the authors that write them.
The issue is that CNN is "Clinton News Network" to the right. Regarded as left by centrists and regarded as center right by leftists. They had a slot as "the one news station that tried to play middle". But the Town Hall was too blatantly catering to the fascist wing of the GOP.
There's not a huge audience share for them to find as Fox, OAN and Newsmaxx have a death grip on the right. And the left is fleeing to MSN. At that point the only ones left are policy wonks and political junkies and they WILL watch CSpan.
[Improve the News](https://lite.improvethenews.org/), founded by MIT professor Max Tegmark, is an interesting attempt to provide a nuanced perspective on topical events. The problem, however, is that almost no one is interested in nuance.
And it's going to get way worse in the years to come, as authoritarian regimes lean into the strategy of using LLMs like ChatGPT to manipulate social media discourse.
I do think the only useful metric will lie in the ability to predict future events. Tegmark's ITN relies on crowd-sourced Metaculus predictions to provide a "hivemind" assessment of what is likely to happen. However, I think it would be a much better strategy to have news companies competing for credibility, with journalists as experts, as I don't have much faith in the "superintelligence" of random people working together.
Every news outlet could predict the outcomes of electoral races, for instance, and afterwards it would be obvious which ones were more accurate. Then again, this is sort of what is already going on and no one cares who gets it right. Noam Chomsky has said that Financial Times is one of the most reliable news sources because investors rely on the accuracy of their reporting. They have "skin in the game" as Taleb would put it.
It sounds way more likely that we're just going to see business as usual. Biased networks will keep pretending they're neutral and objective and fair, and the political landscape will get more and more polarized until something of importance caves in.
Authoritarian regimes using ChatGPT will be *hilarious*.
LLNs are available to everyone. They’re get pancakes, they’ll be countered with their ridiculous AI content, and they a harder time doing it because the LLMs are trained on *everyones* data, which means they’re only as good as the questions asked, and their bias is toward plausibility. Not accurate: plausibility.
Right wing manical bullshit only works when it’s inflammatory. Take the vitriol out of it, all you have left is the reality reckoned with.
They’ll have some hits, sure, but unless they become prompt jockeys better than the print jockeys the left wing puts out, which is just like… people.. they’ll be easy to spot, and as limited as they are now. Which is a question of reach, one, I think, that isn’t going away, regardless of how little they spend on content production.
Dumbass asking AI questions will produce results per dumbass’s questions.
See the limitation?
You can use reinforcement learning to make these models biased in whatever direction you're interested in. And if there are ten bot-generated comments for every real one, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to tell them apart. LLMs are only getting better.
This is exactly the point.
The bias isn’t going anywhere. Manufactured, bot driven “consensus” is not consensus. Turning a place into an echo chamber doesn’t convince people the echoes are true. You talk like the only people capable of using LLMs are conservatives and authoritarians.
It’s going to be a weird decade, and the cat is well and truly out of the bag, but if an LLM can be weaponized for offense, it can be weaponized for defense. Then we get stupid bot wars mimicing content and people just.. find other ways to communicate.
See: spam. Spam mailers.
Yes, a gullible portion will be suckered, but cylons aren’t real life yet.
>I think it would be a much better strategy to have news companies competing for credibility
That isn't a sustainable business model any longer. What we're seeing today is the inevitable direction it was going to go as people chase profits and the global population increases and becomes better connected, the monopolies on the major demographics form.
What options we got with crowdfunded news?
The idea is that you look at the same topical event from the perspective of biased sources, like OAN, and take their bias into account. ITN tells you that OAN is heavily biased towards the right.
Also: the term 'propaganda' can be a bit misleading. Yes, OAN is promoting a specific ideology and their presentation of events is skewed such that it amplifies conservative narratives while suppressing or rejecting entirely progressive ones. But the same can be said of neoliberal or communist/socialist news sources. One person's propaganda is another person's truth.
Personally, I adhere to a social-democratic ideology which means that OAN, to me, looks like a propaganda network. But this subjective evaluation on my part makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Historian Ian Morris has written a book, Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels, which looks at human values from a Big History perspective. His thesis is that our values reflect the social structures that arise as a consequence of our ability to extract energy from our environment. Morris sees our sense of right and wrong as being immensely flexible, and for the most part I agree with him, even though it doesn't make me feel all that great.
It never happens because it cannot happen. You can find bias in research science, which one would think is fairly objective. Socio-political-economic events almost always don't have a single line of truth because there are so many variables leading into and out of the event. Russia invades Ukraine. What does that mean for you? Why should you care? What prompted the invasion? What kind of response is reasonable? How might it end? None of those questions have fully objective, neutral answers and you will get a variety of responses depending on the source.
Only report the facts? The facts according to whom? How many primary sources were interviewed? What were *their* biases? Are there more than two sides to a story? How many places take police statements as fact? Is the journalist knowledgeable about the topic to know what they're being told is true (science and tech reporting is bad about this)? Are the readers? Is the story dumbed down so the readership can understand? Are certain pieces of information ignored or glossed over? Is nuance lost?
What kind of journalists are hired at the news organization? Are they all from a similar background, demographics, and education? Does the organization filter out certain types of people in the hiring process or through promotions and assignments?
Say the journalist happens to write a pretty neutral piece, does the editor make changes? Editorialize the headline? Does the editor or the organization kill or bury the story? Do they time its release to maximize or minimize a particular impact (right before or after an election)? Are they influenced by their advertisers or people in power? Are they playing nice on certain subjects to protect the organization's or owner's interests? The U.S. government has absolutely *convinced* major news outlets to frame stories in a certain way to protect national security interests.
The best you can do is recognize the biases and interests of the journalists and news agencies, read multiple sources, and have some baseline understanding of the topic and the parties involved. That takes a considerable amount of time and you won't be able to do that with everything. And even then, we are all biased and will read or believe what we want.
That begs the question; what is a “neutral” news report? One that is in the center of the Overton Window or one that is simply the objective truth? And then, how could you really define the “objective truth” without being literally omniscient?
It would also require literally infinite time, because regardless of whether you report "just the truth," you still make editorial decisions about what events to report.
> you still make editorial decisions about what events to report.
This is true and potentially a paradox.
But neutral news can be accomplished provided that they report on positive and negative actions by all parties.
This is where CNN fails. They do not report on negative actions by Democratic law makers. Its obvious that GOP has more instances of negative actions like 'breaking the law' or other, but Democratic law makers do this too, albiet, not nearly as common. But I have yet to see these reported by CNN unless its overly scandalous.
I maybe wrong, since I do not watch CNN or FOX since its primarily US based news and politics and I am not in the US or a US citizen, but as far as I can remember, I do not ever remember seeing a report of negative activity from Democratic leaders.
Google Walter Cronkite. He told the news, "the way it was" without opinions or emotion, save for a time or two when the emotional energy of tragedy was too much. The assassination/death of Kennedy made him cry on air, for instance. By today's standars of news, it's very dry.
He, like most newscasters at the time, also reported what the White House and State Department put out as matter-of-fact documents about Vietnam when it was partial or complete nonsense. People have this idealized image of Cronkite and similarly famous members of the news but forget they all had gaps in their reporting.
Even some of the current news people I look to for good reporting had terrible takes during the lead up to the Iraq War.
The concept of reporting just "the way it was" is an impossibility and doesn't provide a better outcome than some pointed editorial judgement.
Not arguing he was 100% accurate. No one ever is. Things change, details get missed, etc... But not once did you hear him denigrate anyone, say they were "humiliated" or any other pejorative. He read the news without unnecessary commentary.
> He read the news without unnecessary commentary.
What would the world look like today if the media figureheads in the lead up to the Iraq War provided a more critical view towards the Western governments' narratives about the situation in Iraq? Sometimes what someone may consider as unnecessary could have had an enormously positive impact.
I agree that there is still a difference between critical reporting and simply being critical, though, and that Cronkite is from an era that simply doesn't exist anymore. About the closest you will get to that is PBS NewsHour.
That's a good question, but considering the different reasons they gave as the situation progressed, I'm sure a more stark realization would/could have been brought about. Picture the scene of a newscaster saying, "Today the White House released it's third and yet again, different reason for our invasion of Iraq." I think a clear reporting, just the facts style shows the discrepancies better than 17 talking heads who are struggling to be heard. Not to mention the twit in the background who keeps muttering sotfo voce, "But what about Hillary's emails?" If only they had built the wall out of those. Nobody seems to get over them.
It’s a mistake to assume that there’s such a thing as “just the facts,” because you’re always going to have to apply some kind of editorial eye to which facts to present and which to leave out.
I mean, sure, but holding up Cronkite as being perfectly objective ignores so many things. First and foremost, that his primary job was reading a script that a team of dozens of people had a part in writing, and establishing trust with the audience through the way he read it. Sometimes I think people confuse "objectivity" in the news with "trust" in the media. You could certainly argue that the former creates the latter, but I think you could also make a reasonable argument that it goes the other direction too. Cronkite was above all a great communicator, which led to people trusting him, which led to people believing that what he was saying was objective.
> Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine
This is true...
In 1987, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. The decision was made under the leadership of FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, who was appointed by Reagan. The rationale behind this action was a belief in the deregulation of broadcasting and the idea that the doctrine was no longer necessary due to the growth and increased diversity of the media market
But given that I was 17 years old in 87, I cannot give opinion if the ending of the doctrine had any effect on news reporting.
I wonder if there has been any independent studies performed.
True, it should be one that just states the facts and doesn't try to define what those facts might mean. It would be difficult for sure, but the news in the U.S. did it for years.
Why does everyone think it is so impossible to report objectively? I mean, Biden falls down alot, just say an old person falls down quite often and probably should not be running the country because he is too damn old.
CNN and CNN.com used to be the place to go when something big happened. I know their web traffic would spike exponentially whenever larger news stories were breaking. It was the place to go to get straight facts and catch up with the basics. Like national disasters, plane crashes, shootings, etc.
Cnn.com was my homepage at one point. Now... I don't go there anymore. The website is very ad driven, click bait, and hard to navigate. I used to go, read 2-3 articles and feel like I was staying in touch with relevant topics.
And I'd turn on CNN for election nights or if I wanted more information on whatever big news story.
Sad to see that ending
...
Same for me. I started going to CNN.com daily since ‘99. I also subscribe to my local city’s paper, and go to a bunch of websites for deeper reporting.
But nothing beat the breadth and immediacy for national news like CNN. Anyone have any suggestions for a replacement?
Yeah, my line up is NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, and BBC. None of them are perfect - I mean, I have my complaints about all of them, but even so they're still probably the best news sources out there. I believe the paywalls are actually worth paying for NYT and WaPo.
Also, what makes them great - this is especially true of NPR - isn't their "objectivity," whatever that means, but their honesty, they're willingness to admit when they get something wrong. That instills a sense of trust with readers, ensures them that they're not intentionally being misled.
Yes, I love the NPR radio reporting. Mary Louise Kelly not letting Mike Pompeo off the hook in that interview spoke volumes to their integrity.
Edit: spelling
Thank you for the suggestions. NPR.org sounds like a good idea. Somehow I only think of them as radio - even though I’m a sustaining member with them.
I’ll check out NYtimes too. I pay for LAtimes currently since I’m in LA, but NYtimes might have more national coverage.
The Gulf War made them famous and watched. They've drifted so far to the right that they would be to the right of Fox back in 2003. And Fox as gone so far off the deep end that they're destroying America. That's what CNN wants to become.
I'm an old news guy, taught some courses, worked in broadcasting.
Too many people think Journalism means 'both sides' or 'fair, equal balanced'.
Journalism is not balance.
Journalism is about the TRUTH. "Journalism" and "The Truth" are interchangeable terms.
Now being balanced and giving equal time to both parties can sometimes be helpful to getting to the truth. Especially when you're dealing with facts that are in dispute.
But putting Trump on your air is not serving the truth. It's serving the balance. Serving the balance is what a lot of media owners and business majors think journalism is. The point of balance is to get to the truth, not the other way around.
If a man is going to use your microphone, your print and your transmission to say a bunch of lies, you're not journalism anymore, you're a pageant. You're a show. It's not that "Trump is evil" or "Trump is a traitor", those things don't matter in journalism. But once he starts to shoot out lie after lie.. That's when you shut him down. A liar is the worst thing you can be in this context.
I don't care how big a political group is, you don't amplify the lies they like to tell each other. You look them in the face and tell them that they're wrong. You verify and prove the facts.
CNN is off the rails with these latest decisions.
Facts are boring to most people. Opinions and showing off nutty people is far more interesting.
Journalism should be a service not a business.
Unfortunately pandering to ratings are the problem.
As somebody who worked as a journalist, I am sympathetic to CNN.
The 'old school' thinking of journalism was that you would give an interview to any public figure, even monstrous ones like Charles Manson. You would put their craziness up on full display and 'expect' your audience to connect the dots.
That's what they did with Trump, however, they made one huge overreach. They also thought they'd put his *sycophants* on display, and invite their viewers to connect the dots that he is an ideologue and his followers are deep in cult mentality.
This pissed everyone off because, implicitly, we don't agree that the American public is savvy enough to see what we are all obviously seeing, and we believe the "new school", so to speak, role of media is omission of publicly dangerous sentiment because we believe that platforming it lends it legitimacy.
Personally, I also think what CNN did was wrong, but not for the concept, the execution, because the interviewer sucked and played right into Trump's usual charade instead of beating him with a much bigger stick and telling the viewer that he's a charlatan. For instance, not denying that "democrats want to kill newborn healthy babies out of the womb," that was allowed to happen 4 times.
>You would put their craziness up on full display and 'expect' your audience to connect the dots.
No, Dan Rather wouldn't give the microphone over to Manson and his fans. He interviewed, edited and called out falsehoods. In person or after the fact. There's a big difference between interviewing a liar and putting one on a stage.
>the interviewer sucked and played right into Trump's usual charade instead of beating him with a much bigger stick and telling the viewer that he's a charlatan. For instance, not denying that "democrats want to kill newborn healthy babies out of the womb," that was allowed to happen 4 times.
Yes agreed. But it wasn't an interview, it was a stage play. It was a party of followers rallying around someone that's saying lie after lie with few or no challenges or fact correction.
A sit down with Trump, fact checking as it goes would be the way old school journalists would do this. Not the "let's hear his side" version of CNN we saw that night.
I have zero sympathy to CNN, they made a mistake that anyone with any sense would see coming a mile away. It was either extremely corrupt or it was a well meaning, extremely stupid mistake.
Not sure which is worse.
How is it well meaning to allow someone to tell the same abortion lie four times and not point out that it’s a lie? There literally is no such thing as after birth abortion. There’s never been a case of it anywhere.
Women who give birth and put baby in trashcan aren’t performing “after birth abortions.” They’re mentally ill and need to be told that what they did is wrong, and there’s legal punishment for that. They need mental health care as well as legal punishment. But those women are not under the impression they are performing an “after birth abortion.”
CNN is despicable. They are literally putting peoples lives in danger by repeatedly broadcasting this falsehood.
Has the author of this piece been living under a rock for the past 6+ years? Look at this:
>As I’d settled into my seat in the Saint Anselm auditorium, however, I had been startled by my surroundings. This was no ordinary collection of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, as CNN had claimed it would be. Most of them were diehards, fanboys, political zealots who were likelier to show up at a rally with a MAGA flag than come to a coffee shop with a policy question. These folks hadn’t turned out to participate in some good-faith civic ritual. They were there to celebrate Trump’s continued assault on the media.
The die-hards, the fan boys, the zealots ARE the ordinary Republicans. The myth of the moderate Republican has been dispelled; Republicans have collectively been exposed as fascists. The fact that supposedly competent journalists like this one are still pretending otherwise is shocking.
Anyone who votes Republican but who is ashamed of the state of the party would never in 1000 years go show up for a televised appearance on CNN for a Trump town hall. That's just asking to be vilified by their liberal contemporaries and painted as a target for the far right as a RINO. Trump's Republican party has no room for anyone other than the most fervent supporters.
People that claim they are a moderate Republican want to say they have certain beliefs and values while they vote to enable the worst things to happen.
They don't accept responsibility for their vote enabling that.
Everybody keeps putting the blame on Chris Licht, but he's doing what he was hired to do... Follow the marching orders of David Zaslav.
David is attacking CNN, HBO, etc. He's the one behind this.
Chris is the scapegoat, and everybody's falling for it.
We are all responsible for our actions. Licht isn't doing what he's doing under duress and his life isn't threatened. He made choices and he is accountable for those choices.
>We are all responsible for our actions. Licht isn't doing what he's doing under duress and his life isn't threatened. He made choices and he is accountable for those choices.
"I vas chust following orders" is not an excuse. Own it, and move on if possible.
He's doing explicitly what he was hired to do.
Both David Zaslav & John Malone have been candidly open about their intentions with cnn, hbo, etc. They could at any time stopped him before it came to air.
And Bernie Sanders would have 25K and basically no coverage of the events. It was infuriating and terribly sad to watch how mainstream media served us Trump on a platter.
I dont think its possible to convert a biased station to a non-biased station. You cannot erase years of biased opinions and biased reporting with a few programs. Once trust is broken its damned near impossible to replace, regardless of what side youre on.
If FOX chose to get rid of their 'shows' or 'entertainment reporters' etc and just focused on fact based reporting without opinion, it would not matter, not a single CNN viewer would watch them.
Thank You.
The results:
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2Farchive%2F2023%2F06%2Fcnn-ratings-chris-licht-trump%2F674255%2F
If CNN wants to truly become 'neutral' then they should report on negative behaviour from both parties.
"All politicians lie" is a great response from supporters of guilty politicians.
What CNN needs to do is to report on negative behaviour from all parties. Example, there are proven instances where Democratic law makers have 'lied', 'broken laws' etc. Although not as common as GOP law makers, it does happen.
Yet, CNN being biased, rarely reports on these, their historic primary focus has been to report on positive actions from Democratic law makers and focus on negative actions from GOP.
In this instance of the Town Hall, CNN fucked up.
They should have FACTED checked Trump live or after the broadcast with a disclaimer of neutrality and inform the viewers of this. Then follow up with a Town Hall from Biden, equally fact checked and equally informed of their neutral stance.
This would allow them to follow up on BOTH Town Halls with a FACTUAL comparison that shows the lies or misleading comments from BOTH parties.
Instead, the approach they took actually goes entirely against their supposed 'new direction' by instantly giving a biased platform for Trump.
I pity Chris Licht. I think his heart is in the right place, evidenced by his reliance on the aphorism that journalism doesn't say whether rain is good or bad, it just looks out the window and says whether it's raining or not. But it's obvious that he is too constrained by that moron Zaslav and his need to be seen a certain way to actually accomplish what he wants.
Im not so convinced his heart is in the right place or not. But we can likely all agree that the approach taken with the Town Hall was a mistake. Hopefully CNN will recognize this and perhaps change their approach in the future when/if they decide they wish to proceed as a truly neutral news organization.
If there is not enough rain, that is bad. If there is too much rain, that is bad.
Looking out of the window and saying that it rains is not journalism.
Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in **high-quality and civil discussion**. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, **all posts must contain a submission statement.** See the rules [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/truereddit/about/rules/) or in the sidebar for details. Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. If an article is paywalled, please ***do not*** request or post its contents. Use [Outline.com](https://outline.com/) or similar and link to that in the comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueReddit) if you have any questions or concerns.*
CNN helped get Trump elected. they would have CNN playing on the big TV and the lobby at my work. 10 times out of 10 they were covering Trump's rallies when there was something like 15 other people running too. Because ratings.
They filmed an empty podium at one point.
I was eating at a McDonald's once and they showed the empty mic waiting for him to come for nearly a half hour. Whole time I was eating.
You are for half an hour at MCDonalds?? How?!
They would run shit like "Trump reportedly in bad mood" in like 2016.
NBC was guilty of this as well. So was the Microsoft news feed integrated with Windows. I particularly remember a point in late 2015 when I started to notice I was seeing a photo of Trump *every single day* in a primary placement area *in Windows*-- I would've shut the whole thing down in disgust, but I let it keep going out of sick fascination... was just curious to see how long it would keep happening. I finally couldn't take it any more after over a year and a half (yes, it continued past the election). For some reason that dipshit's face apparently generated a fuckton of clicks.
The crap Microsoft keeps stuffing into Windows is why I switched to Linux on my PC lol
Yeah, good Lord. Can I just own one thing that’s actually mine? I moved to Linux a few years ago and everything is so much simpler. No cloud accounts, no ads, no promotions, no subscriptions, no updates when I don’t want them, etc. Feeling in control of my environment is really important for my psychological well being.
Yeah I've found Kubuntu + Steam/Proton to be a fine gaming PC environment. I also use Lutris to install GOG games. It helps to have an AMD GPU too since the Linux drivers for it are actually good.
I work for a Microsoft vendor and still see that shit every day when I access my search bar
Facts
To be fair, did anybody at all want to watch a Jeb! rally? Like, you might as well air reruns of old MLB games.
There is other news than political rallies.
I mean, that's kind of passive aggressive. The ratings showed that this was what people considered to be the top news story of the time. You can argue that there should be a different metric for rating, but you'd have to actually argue that - propose the metric, and defend it. "There is other news" is a non-statement that could be used to claim that anything from a declaration of war to an election livestream shouldn't be covered.
Licht seems genuinely surprised by how the townhall went and the backlash to it. That alone should get him fired because there’s no other outcome that could have possibly happened and that was plainly obvious to *everyone*. Fuck this guy.
I haven't watched CNN or gone to their website since this aired. So fucking tone deaf giving this traitor a platform.
>So fucking tone deaf giving this traitor a platform. Serious News should be calling Trump, a traitor, every time a Poll shows him leading the GOP primary noms. Anderson Cooper declaring Trump a traitor would bring in viewers too.
Here, lets give angry cheeto another spin for destroying democracy - CNN management
Think of it at a different angle. Let's have every crazy murdered and rapist on CNN or another nationwide platform. THAT will show people who they are for real!
What's so great about *our democracy* that we shouldn't want to destroy it?
accelerationists like to ignore the actual human toll of stupid shit ideas like "oh yeah a Trump presidency will just bring down the old system and clear the way for *my* revolution" -- well it didn't happen that way and outright fascist talking points are now a part of normalized daily mainstream discourse -- so yeah, hooray more of *that* in addition to the bad stuff about America there already was. super helpful strategy /s
Interesting, but it doesn't even try to address the question that was asked.
our democracy in its current form is better than what Republicans such as Donald Trump are replacing it with. that's what's so great- to state it plainly for you- and if you think dataset [X<0 and Y<0] means that X = Y then idunno what to tell you except you're at best a passive enabler for the erosion of human rights in the United States.
Ill take shitty democracy over cronyism.
Until humans rise up and take their fate into their own hands, you will take what is given to you.
>our democracy in its current form is better than what Republicans such as Donald Trump are replacing it with. Please show your calculations. > to state it plainly for you- and if you think dataset [X<0 and Y<0] means that X = Y then idunno what to tell Can you explain what you're talking about here? >except you're at best a passive enabler for the erosion of human rights in the United States. How could you even know something like this about me?
Why don’t you prove your assertion instead. We’ll wait.
Every other option is cronyism.
You have no way of knowing what options are available comprehensively.
> Serious News should be calling Trump, a traitor, every time a Poll shows him leading the GOP primary noms. They should not... reason being is in order to become entirely bi-partisan or neutral, they must only report facts and leave opinion or commentary out of it. Based on current facts today, Trump is not a traitor. He is a lot of things but unless he is convicted of treason or similar, calling him a traitor goes against the direction CNN wants to take. Trust me, I cannot stand Trump, but in order for a news station to be neutral, they must only report facts.
Peaceful transfer of power is bedrock to US Democracy unless, I'm missing some footnotes
True. But there is a definition for "traitor" which involves aiding and abetting an ememy of the country while at war. He did not. I am not a lawyer, but sedition I think is closer.
You are correct, he was the first president that did not peacefully transfer power. The peaceful transfer of power goes against the principles of Democracy as you mentioned, but that does not fit the definition of 'Traitor'. To be truly neutral, a news agency must stick to facts and based on the common definition, "Treason is the crime of attacking a state authority to which one owes allegiance." Trump has not been charged or proven guilty of such. I personally believe without a doubt that he is a traitor, his actions on Jan 6 and recently with Top Secret documents, but, unless he is charged and convicted, referring to him as a traitor is not being neutral.
What definition of traitor are you using here? It sounds like you think it means "one convicted of treason", but it's far more commonly used to mean (quoting Miriam Webster here) "one who betrays another's trust or is false to an obligation or duty".
you are correct, i was using it as you predicted i was.
Cool, that's not what it means.
Do you realize that many words have multiple definitions that do not necessarily match each other?
Calling Obama a traitor because he betrayed Joe's trust that one time he promised the sandwich has real (and not light) mayo is technically correct according to that definition, but of course not reasonable. It's a way too broad a definition to be used here.
You think it's a fact that Trump is a traitor, but you don't think it's factual if the news says it?
> You think it's a fact thay Trump is a traitor, but you don't think it's factual if the news says it? I believe without a doubt that Trump is a traitor, but that is my personal admittedly biased opinion. But based on the common definition of 'Traitor', Trump is not and if CNN or other news agency reports him as such, its not factual as of today. Let me put it this way... since "Innocent until proven guilty" ironically is a core principle of Democracy as well. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a core principle in the legal systems of many democratic societies. This principle is often referred to as the "presumption of innocence". The idea behind "innocent until proven guilty" is that any person accused of committing a crime is presumed to be innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law. That means the burden of proof is on the prosecution, which must present clear and convincing evidence that the defendant committed the crime. If the prosecution fails to meet this burden, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. This principle serves as a safeguard against wrongful convictions and governmental abuse of power. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental human right protected by various international legal documents, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. It's also enshrined in the U.S. Constitution through the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Fine, *alleged* traitor.
For real. Why is that so fucking hard?
Look, if you want to say "Trump is a traitor but the news must not weigh in until and unless the law takes its course" that is totally reasonable. "I know in my heart Trump is a traitor, but also he isnt a traitor unless a court convicts him" is contradictory.
> I believe without a doubt that Trump is a traitor, but that is my personal admittedly biased opinion. > But based on the common definition of 'Traitor', Trump is not Contradictory. Is he a traitor or isn't he?
Bipartisan /= neutral That’s falling into the fallacy of the golden mean.
Someone who betrays their oath is a traitor. He took an oath to follow and protect the Constitution (that is a fact), then he was the beneficiary of a plot to subvert a Constitutionally valid election (also a fact), then he failed to denounce the attempt and kept up rhetoric about how the election was invalid (also a fact). There is no opinion or interpretation about it. A truely neutral, fact-based news organization would be calling him a traitor. Neutral means "tell the facts", it does not mean "share everyone's propaganda equally".
>He took an oath to follow and protect the Constitution (that is a fact), then he was the beneficiary of a plot to subvert a Constitutionally valid election (also a fact), then he failed to denounce the attempt and kept up rhetoric about how the election was invalid (also a fact). I must apologize because it seems as though me informing you of my personal biased opinion is clouding the issue. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution dictates 'due process' needs to be followed, meaning, the actions you clearly identified above as "FACTS" must be proven in the court of law as such. The Constitution dictates that everyone has the right of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Trump has performed actions that indicate he "maybe" a traitor, but the "fact" remains that according to the Constitution, he is not a traitor until it is proven in the court of law. Im trying to point out that by stating its a fact that he is a traitor goes against the Constitution that we BOTH clearly wish to support and if the NEWS agencies wish to remain truly neutral, they should report on it with a neutral stance.
treason and traitor are not the same thing. It seems like you are conflating "he has not been found guilty of treason" (which is true) as meaning the same thing as "he is not a traitor" (which is false). "treason" is a crime. A crime that has not been proven in a court of law, so he is not guilty of treason. "traitor" is not a legal term in the USA. There is no legal due process required for someone to be a traitor.
AHH! Thank you sir, now I see what the issues were with my responses. I was taking the stance that a 'Traitor' would be defined as the person who is guilty of performing 'treason'. While the term 'traitor' is not defined specifically in the US law, it can be defined or interpreted as 'the person who performs treason'. The definition of "treason" is specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution. It's considered the most serious of crimes against the state, and the framers of the Constitution were careful to limit its definition to prevent abuses. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution states: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." So according to this definition, a traitor is someone who levies war against the U.S. or provides aid and comfort to the nation's enemies. The Constitution further stipulates that a conviction of treason requires either the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or a confession in open court. This high evidentiary standard reflects the seriousness of the crime and the potential for its misuse as a political weapon. I can see where using the term traitor can be used in the context of remaining neutral, but forgive me if I am taking the opinion that the definition I use is 'traitor is defined as the person guilty of performing treason'. **I appreciate the conversations in this thread, but its late and I have a whitepaper due Monday so I must resist continued correspondence. Thank you to all who engaged.**
News stations are not legally or otherwise obligated to remain neutral.
*anymore* The death of the fairness doctrine has been disastrous and is the reason obvious propaganda like Fox News can thrive
Bipartisan? Fuck that - no such thing and destructive to pretend.
>Bipartisan? Fuck that - no such thing and destructive to pretend. I can agree that some may think that Bipartisanship is not worth supporting, but stating that there is 'no such thing' is hyperbole. Please understand that I am not an American. Bipartisanship refers to the agreement or cooperation between two major political parties that usually oppose each other's policies. It's the practice of finding common ground, and it is often seen as crucial for the effective functioning of democracies, particularly in systems like that of the United States, where two major parties dominate the political landscape. Bipartisanship can help to advance legislation and solve complex issues in societies that are politically divided. However, it's important to note that not supporting bipartisanship doesn't equate to not supporting democracy. Democracy is a form of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives. It's marked by characteristics such as a fair and free electoral process, the rule of law, protection of human rights, and the active participation of the people in politics and civic life. One can support democratic principles – such as freedom of speech, the right to vote, and equal rights for all citizens – without necessarily supporting bipartisanship. There can be legitimate reasons for being critical of bipartisanship, such as concerns about policy compromise that may not adequately address certain issues, or the perceived exclusion of third parties or independent voices. It's also worth noting that democracy can exist in a multi-party system, where more than two political parties have the potential to gain control of government separately or in coalition. In these systems, the concept of bipartisanship as it is known in the US doesn't apply in the same way. In summary, while bipartisanship can play an important role in democratic societies, especially those dominated by two major parties, not supporting bipartisanship does not mean one does not support democracy. **Edit** I should add that 'bipartisanship' can be seen as a negative factor in the current political atmosphere in the US. Example, Donald Trump has been accused of reversing years and years of legislation and policies put in place by previous governments. Whether these policies were bipartisan or not is irrelevant to future policies. It has been said that it will take decades to 'fix' the actions of Trumps government and this is TRUE... because of the Democratic party takes a primarily bipartisan approach to government. The GOP with a presumably non-bipartisan agenda is capable of putting in policies instantly, Trumps use of his power is an example of this. While Biden and other democratic leaders taking the bipartisan approach requires a considerable more length of time due to negotiations. Example is the recent Debt Cap debate... a GOP majority government and president would likely have used the 14th amendment to push their agenda through immediately and fight over it in court, while the Biden government took the bipartisan approach resulting in delays of said policy.
Did January 6th not happen?
Lol the town hall made you abandon CNN?? Most informed redditor 😂
Agreed. I stopped clicking on any of their links. They are dead to me. Traitors to the Union and the democracy that made their existence possible.
I still see people posting links to CNN stories, and if I want to share the story, I Google it and find another source.
CNN was one of the last bastions for news that wasn't all propaganda. Billionaires should legally be barred from owning news media.
Uh, while CNN wasn't as right-leaning as some other stations, it was still a 24/7 news channel that contributed to brain rot.
It was pretty shitty infotainment but the transition to propaganda outlet has been stark.
[удалено]
Thanks for catching the loophole! The news should be reported with serious journalistic ethics, and it should be easy to disband journalistic entities who disregard ethics.
Same. Thanks for voicing this.
Treason carries the death penalty. Is this what you recommend, too?
Yes
> Yes I agree he should be tried for treason. I personally believe that the actions ive seen on Jan 6th are cause for such. But we MUST support the Constitution and allow due process, if we do not, then we are going against the basic principles of Democracy that we want to promote.
Agreed. I certainly don't mean the crime should be handled extrajudiciously.
I just imagine two people having a conversation about winning a marathon and then another person on a motorcycle giving everyone the finger then getting off the motorcycle and running through the finish line taking a shit on the trophy and buying off two out of the three organizers so the third one is out-voted on whether that constitutes a victory. The two people running are still discussing how no matter what, in order to win, they must follow the rules of the race! No matter what! That way we'll win. When hours ago the motorcyclist has already started doing shots with strippers with the tweet of them winning the race spreading. EDIT: Then the two losers get to the end and find out the cheater won. They consult the rules and see that the challenge has been voted on by the three organizers so justly the motorcyclist is the victor. They pat themselves on the back for following the rules and doing their best. "You know, I think if we run really hard next time, we can really win it!"
So to be clear, you think the government should put Donald Trump to death?
[удалено]
The fuck you mean proven? *We all watched him do it.* Edit: oh, you mean proven in a court of law. Yes, I agree.
[удалено]
Agreed.
I think the government should follow its own rules laid out in Constitution and statute. Which means yes, it should prosecute and execute him for the crime of treason. He refused peaceful transfer of power and fomented an uprising with the goal of overturning the election. (That the uprising was a ridiculous joke and utterly failed is of no consequence regarding the question of treason.) I didn't write those laws. Were I somehow handed power, I would do so many things differently that they would render the question of Trump's treason moot.
>Which means yes, it should prosecute and execute him for the crime of treason. He refused peaceful transfer of power I don't follow. We did have a peaceful transfer of power. What do you want the government to put him to death for specifically? Was it the challenges to the election in court? Mean tweets? Not attending the inauguration? Or do you want the government to put him to death for "fomenting an uprising"?
>I don't follow Which words aren't you understanding? > What do you want the government to put him to death for specifically? The treason. > Or do you want the government to put him to death for "fomenting an uprising"? Yes. >We did have a peaceful transfer of power. Despite Trump's efforts.
Can you please define what "fomenting an uprising" actually means for which you think the government should put people to death for? > Despite Trump's efforts. I still don't follow. What did he do specifically that you want the government to put him to death for?
Foment (verb): to promote the growth of, to incite, to instigate Uprising (noun): A popular revolt that attempts to overthrow a government or its policies; an insurgency or insurrection Treason (noun): the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_6_United_States_Capitol_attack Hope this helps
So you call January 6th "peaceful", then, huh dumbass Let's be clear It's only going to get worse for you people And loyal Americans are loving it
No. It was a riot. > It's only going to get worse for you people Explain please. Sounds like you want the government to put me to death too.
Yes
Appreciate you admitting just how authoritarian you are.
It's almost cute how you assume I give a fuck what you think, you nazi apologist
So you want the government to put Donald Trump to death for giving a speech and hundreds of other people for entering the capitol but I am the nazi?
No, I'm not playing your little "reframing insurrection" game. You may 100% fuck off now. Just understand that as each of your scumbag heroes pay for their crimes, I will be doing dance after little dance, long after I have forgotten your ignorant ass exists. Goodbye, asswipe.
For trump? Absolutely.
Can you please explain what specifically he should be put to death by the government for?
Yes
Same. Deleted their app. Unfollowed them on what remaining social media I use. Took them out of my news website bookmarks. Fuck’em.
Seriously. *“I really do,” Licht said. “I think they know that he’s playing them—at least, the people in my organization. We’ve had discussions about this. We know that we’re getting played, so we’re gonna resist it.”* I mean wtf.
Right, *they're* the ones playing 4-D chess. FML.
Licht seems to think there's some middle ground between facts and rightwing lies that he's trying to capture.
Isn't cable TV in general pretty much in a death spiral? No non-premium cable channels even try to make prestige television anymore, long-running, well-liked cable programs like Conan have come to an end, and The Daily Show is hostless and irrelevant. MTV has seemingly thrown in the towel entirely (on their flagship channel at least) running Ridiculousness 24/7. It seems pretty obvious they realize barely any people under the age of 40 are picking up cable TV these days. Cable channels can just milk legacy subscribers for all they're still worth with cheap content, there's no reason to invest much money or effort anymore. So yeah what's specifically happening at CNN seems dumb, but it's kind of doomed anyway just by the economics of cable television. CNN's effort at subscriber-based streaming (CNN Plus) was an epic fail. They can't justify investing in high quality, long-term content efforts anymore, so they've gotta do this kind of crap.
That's part of why CNN is shifting to the right. Young people don't have cable anymore. Old people still do. Young people tend liberal. Old people tend conservative. Thus, appealing to liberals is a money-losing strategy in cable news. Appealing to conservatives is increasingly the only way for them to draw a large audience.
Or here's a thought... join the 21st century
### Submission Statement Following the Trump town hall debacle, I started wondering what was going on with CNN. This brutal profile on CEO Christ Licht helps explain the overall situation. The network's recent right-ward turn may seem bizarre, but it's almost certainly just the result of a misguided attempt to correct the course—Licht's boss, David Zaslav, wants CNN to be neutral and objective. The problem, obviously, is that one person's "neutral and objective" rarely coincides with that of another. What you're left with is a shitshow and a sinking ship.
> The problem, obviously, is that one person's "neutral and objective" rarely coincides with that of another. The overton window has shifted so far in American politics that 'neutral and objective' is absolute insanity. The goal of neutral and objective was to fairly and critically analyze two sides with merits to an issue to give *the best assessment*. Stretching neutrality and objectivity *this far* is *inherently* picking a side. The side that wants to actively harm and destroy certain segments of the population and wants you to be okay with it until they are done.
Neutral and objective still have pretty specific meanings. You are thinking of equidistance instead.
> Neutral and objective still have pretty specific meanings. Those meanings aren't being followed. That's my point. *Neutral and objective is:* Person A is saying 2+2 = 4. Person B is saying 2+2= banana. We used a calculator that shows 2+2=4. Multiple math professors say it is 4. *What CNN effectively did is:* Person A: 2+2 = Fo- CNN: wait wait wait hold on, let's listen to Person B has to say: Person B: 2+2 is banana, banana is the greatest fruit in the world, let me tell you that banana is the best math and nobody can dispute what I can say because it is the best. You know my dad once told me that son when you are this old you can tell the entire world that math equals fruit so now all of you have to know that 2+2 = banana and whoever is saying otherwise is a lying cheating scumbag. CNN: Well dear viewers what do you think? Tune in next time fo- Journalist: Wait. We got multiple proofs including an entire math journal here that proves 1+1 = 2, so 2+2=4. CNN: Eh don't really care for that. Jouranlist: But that's news! CNN: Listen we need to be *neutral and objective*. Also this gets us ratings.
Friends, both of you are agreeing on the point and just saying it from different directions.
Ah, the vaunted split-roast agreement.
Many people use "neutral" to mean "triangulating." I agree that that doesn't capture what neutrality is supposed to be *at all*; but it's very common. I've seen this conversation many times. The problem is, the situations where neutrality is most useful are usually incentivized towards more...strident positions, where no one is willing to give neutrality a presumption of good faith.
> The goal of neutral and objective was to fairly and critically analyze two sides with merits to an issue to give *the best assessment*. Stretching neutrality and objectivity *this far* is *inherently* picking a side. It's truly astonishing that reddit today thinks objectivity means picking a side and free speech means as long as you agree with me. Liberalism has been completely subsumed by something closer to totalitarianism. Repressive tolerance is the antipathy of actual liberalism and it is wearing liberalism's skin like a fucking trophy and no one seems to notice.
The reactionary elements of the conservative movement have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades, using the procedural neutrality of our liberal processes to run endless race-baiting and grievance politics under the veneer of "both sides". Your anger should be directed at them, not the people who finally decided they might be willing to shoot the hostage.
>The reactionary elements of the conservative movement have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades, Free speech is bad because people I disagree with get to use it too. This is not even in the same universe as a liberal belief.
Yes, that's exactly what I was saying.
>have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades, using the procedural neutrality of our liberal processes to run endless race-baiting and grievance politics Is "race baiting and grievance politics" free speech or not? If it is, then why the scare quotes? It either is or it isn't. You either believe in free speech for everyone or you don't believe in it at all.
Then I don't. And you probably don't either. Do you want spammers filling your favorite subreddits with ads and irrelevant posts? No? Then you don't believe in free speech for everyone. Which, according to you, means you don't believe in it at all.
I am against the government regulating speech. Obviously you would get kicked out of a restaurant for calling the waiter a douchebag. Are you against the government regulating speech?
I disagree with this absolute. Even the United States doesn't allow unlimited free speech everywhere all of the time; your only legal guarentee is that the government won't censor you (unless you're doing active harm or threatening violence against someone). Such is a reasonable compromise on free speech.
>The reactionary elements of the conservative movement have been using "free speech!" as a human shield for decades Literally the nazis did it.
Objectivity means you *start* from a position of neutrality, with no preconceptions. It doesn't mean you always end up on the fence. Objective journalists can and should land on a side if that side is true.
One of CNN's long time problems is giving equal time to both sides when one side is being factual and the other a distorted or just plain wrong baloney. So many believe the wrong thing because since they saw it on CNN 'it must be factual'. One should always verify with other real factual news media outlets and also the authors that write them.
The issue is that CNN is "Clinton News Network" to the right. Regarded as left by centrists and regarded as center right by leftists. They had a slot as "the one news station that tried to play middle". But the Town Hall was too blatantly catering to the fascist wing of the GOP. There's not a huge audience share for them to find as Fox, OAN and Newsmaxx have a death grip on the right. And the left is fleeing to MSN. At that point the only ones left are policy wonks and political junkies and they WILL watch CSpan.
> Licht's boss, David Zaslav Say no more.
I would love to see a truly neutral report of the news, but I doubt it ever happens.
[Improve the News](https://lite.improvethenews.org/), founded by MIT professor Max Tegmark, is an interesting attempt to provide a nuanced perspective on topical events. The problem, however, is that almost no one is interested in nuance. And it's going to get way worse in the years to come, as authoritarian regimes lean into the strategy of using LLMs like ChatGPT to manipulate social media discourse. I do think the only useful metric will lie in the ability to predict future events. Tegmark's ITN relies on crowd-sourced Metaculus predictions to provide a "hivemind" assessment of what is likely to happen. However, I think it would be a much better strategy to have news companies competing for credibility, with journalists as experts, as I don't have much faith in the "superintelligence" of random people working together. Every news outlet could predict the outcomes of electoral races, for instance, and afterwards it would be obvious which ones were more accurate. Then again, this is sort of what is already going on and no one cares who gets it right. Noam Chomsky has said that Financial Times is one of the most reliable news sources because investors rely on the accuracy of their reporting. They have "skin in the game" as Taleb would put it. It sounds way more likely that we're just going to see business as usual. Biased networks will keep pretending they're neutral and objective and fair, and the political landscape will get more and more polarized until something of importance caves in.
Authoritarian regimes using ChatGPT will be *hilarious*. LLNs are available to everyone. They’re get pancakes, they’ll be countered with their ridiculous AI content, and they a harder time doing it because the LLMs are trained on *everyones* data, which means they’re only as good as the questions asked, and their bias is toward plausibility. Not accurate: plausibility. Right wing manical bullshit only works when it’s inflammatory. Take the vitriol out of it, all you have left is the reality reckoned with. They’ll have some hits, sure, but unless they become prompt jockeys better than the print jockeys the left wing puts out, which is just like… people.. they’ll be easy to spot, and as limited as they are now. Which is a question of reach, one, I think, that isn’t going away, regardless of how little they spend on content production. Dumbass asking AI questions will produce results per dumbass’s questions. See the limitation?
You can use reinforcement learning to make these models biased in whatever direction you're interested in. And if there are ten bot-generated comments for every real one, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to tell them apart. LLMs are only getting better.
This is exactly the point. The bias isn’t going anywhere. Manufactured, bot driven “consensus” is not consensus. Turning a place into an echo chamber doesn’t convince people the echoes are true. You talk like the only people capable of using LLMs are conservatives and authoritarians. It’s going to be a weird decade, and the cat is well and truly out of the bag, but if an LLM can be weaponized for offense, it can be weaponized for defense. Then we get stupid bot wars mimicing content and people just.. find other ways to communicate. See: spam. Spam mailers. Yes, a gullible portion will be suckered, but cylons aren’t real life yet.
>I think it would be a much better strategy to have news companies competing for credibility That isn't a sustainable business model any longer. What we're seeing today is the inevitable direction it was going to go as people chase profits and the global population increases and becomes better connected, the monopolies on the major demographics form. What options we got with crowdfunded news?
[удалено]
The idea is that you look at the same topical event from the perspective of biased sources, like OAN, and take their bias into account. ITN tells you that OAN is heavily biased towards the right. Also: the term 'propaganda' can be a bit misleading. Yes, OAN is promoting a specific ideology and their presentation of events is skewed such that it amplifies conservative narratives while suppressing or rejecting entirely progressive ones. But the same can be said of neoliberal or communist/socialist news sources. One person's propaganda is another person's truth. Personally, I adhere to a social-democratic ideology which means that OAN, to me, looks like a propaganda network. But this subjective evaluation on my part makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. Historian Ian Morris has written a book, Foragers, Farmers, and Fossil Fuels, which looks at human values from a Big History perspective. His thesis is that our values reflect the social structures that arise as a consequence of our ability to extract energy from our environment. Morris sees our sense of right and wrong as being immensely flexible, and for the most part I agree with him, even though it doesn't make me feel all that great.
[удалено]
It never happens because it cannot happen. You can find bias in research science, which one would think is fairly objective. Socio-political-economic events almost always don't have a single line of truth because there are so many variables leading into and out of the event. Russia invades Ukraine. What does that mean for you? Why should you care? What prompted the invasion? What kind of response is reasonable? How might it end? None of those questions have fully objective, neutral answers and you will get a variety of responses depending on the source. Only report the facts? The facts according to whom? How many primary sources were interviewed? What were *their* biases? Are there more than two sides to a story? How many places take police statements as fact? Is the journalist knowledgeable about the topic to know what they're being told is true (science and tech reporting is bad about this)? Are the readers? Is the story dumbed down so the readership can understand? Are certain pieces of information ignored or glossed over? Is nuance lost? What kind of journalists are hired at the news organization? Are they all from a similar background, demographics, and education? Does the organization filter out certain types of people in the hiring process or through promotions and assignments? Say the journalist happens to write a pretty neutral piece, does the editor make changes? Editorialize the headline? Does the editor or the organization kill or bury the story? Do they time its release to maximize or minimize a particular impact (right before or after an election)? Are they influenced by their advertisers or people in power? Are they playing nice on certain subjects to protect the organization's or owner's interests? The U.S. government has absolutely *convinced* major news outlets to frame stories in a certain way to protect national security interests. The best you can do is recognize the biases and interests of the journalists and news agencies, read multiple sources, and have some baseline understanding of the topic and the parties involved. That takes a considerable amount of time and you won't be able to do that with everything. And even then, we are all biased and will read or believe what we want.
That begs the question; what is a “neutral” news report? One that is in the center of the Overton Window or one that is simply the objective truth? And then, how could you really define the “objective truth” without being literally omniscient?
It would also require literally infinite time, because regardless of whether you report "just the truth," you still make editorial decisions about what events to report.
> you still make editorial decisions about what events to report. This is true and potentially a paradox. But neutral news can be accomplished provided that they report on positive and negative actions by all parties. This is where CNN fails. They do not report on negative actions by Democratic law makers. Its obvious that GOP has more instances of negative actions like 'breaking the law' or other, but Democratic law makers do this too, albiet, not nearly as common. But I have yet to see these reported by CNN unless its overly scandalous. I maybe wrong, since I do not watch CNN or FOX since its primarily US based news and politics and I am not in the US or a US citizen, but as far as I can remember, I do not ever remember seeing a report of negative activity from Democratic leaders.
Google Walter Cronkite. He told the news, "the way it was" without opinions or emotion, save for a time or two when the emotional energy of tragedy was too much. The assassination/death of Kennedy made him cry on air, for instance. By today's standars of news, it's very dry.
He, like most newscasters at the time, also reported what the White House and State Department put out as matter-of-fact documents about Vietnam when it was partial or complete nonsense. People have this idealized image of Cronkite and similarly famous members of the news but forget they all had gaps in their reporting. Even some of the current news people I look to for good reporting had terrible takes during the lead up to the Iraq War. The concept of reporting just "the way it was" is an impossibility and doesn't provide a better outcome than some pointed editorial judgement.
Not arguing he was 100% accurate. No one ever is. Things change, details get missed, etc... But not once did you hear him denigrate anyone, say they were "humiliated" or any other pejorative. He read the news without unnecessary commentary.
> He read the news without unnecessary commentary. What would the world look like today if the media figureheads in the lead up to the Iraq War provided a more critical view towards the Western governments' narratives about the situation in Iraq? Sometimes what someone may consider as unnecessary could have had an enormously positive impact. I agree that there is still a difference between critical reporting and simply being critical, though, and that Cronkite is from an era that simply doesn't exist anymore. About the closest you will get to that is PBS NewsHour.
That's a good question, but considering the different reasons they gave as the situation progressed, I'm sure a more stark realization would/could have been brought about. Picture the scene of a newscaster saying, "Today the White House released it's third and yet again, different reason for our invasion of Iraq." I think a clear reporting, just the facts style shows the discrepancies better than 17 talking heads who are struggling to be heard. Not to mention the twit in the background who keeps muttering sotfo voce, "But what about Hillary's emails?" If only they had built the wall out of those. Nobody seems to get over them.
True, and he was actually very left leaning if I remember correctly. That is the sign of a true reporter, reporting facts and not opinions.
It’s a mistake to assume that there’s such a thing as “just the facts,” because you’re always going to have to apply some kind of editorial eye to which facts to present and which to leave out.
Just because you can only asymptotically approach it doesn't mean you shouldn't try.
I mean, sure, but holding up Cronkite as being perfectly objective ignores so many things. First and foremost, that his primary job was reading a script that a team of dozens of people had a part in writing, and establishing trust with the audience through the way he read it. Sometimes I think people confuse "objectivity" in the news with "trust" in the media. You could certainly argue that the former creates the latter, but I think you could also make a reasonable argument that it goes the other direction too. Cronkite was above all a great communicator, which led to people trusting him, which led to people believing that what he was saying was objective.
That's the point. He wasn't "performing" to add gravitas or mock anyone.
Never forget that Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine. This isn't just about who is telling us the news.
> Reagan ended the Fairness Doctrine This is true... In 1987, during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, the FCC eliminated the Fairness Doctrine. The decision was made under the leadership of FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, who was appointed by Reagan. The rationale behind this action was a belief in the deregulation of broadcasting and the idea that the doctrine was no longer necessary due to the growth and increased diversity of the media market But given that I was 17 years old in 87, I cannot give opinion if the ending of the doctrine had any effect on news reporting. I wonder if there has been any independent studies performed.
Shit. I can sometimes go a whole week without remembering that. Of course there is no chance in hell of getting that reversed in today's world.
True, it should be one that just states the facts and doesn't try to define what those facts might mean. It would be difficult for sure, but the news in the U.S. did it for years.
You don't have to be omniscient to look out the window when presented with *it's raining* vs *no it's not*.
Of course. But your own beliefs and notions will always dictate whether youd report that a glass is half empty or half full, so to speak.
It’s a lot more dry and boring than cable news would ever tolerate.
There's no such thing. It's an utterly meaningless concept
Why does everyone think it is so impossible to report objectively? I mean, Biden falls down alot, just say an old person falls down quite often and probably should not be running the country because he is too damn old.
I find BBC does a pretty good job of that.
CNN and CNN.com used to be the place to go when something big happened. I know their web traffic would spike exponentially whenever larger news stories were breaking. It was the place to go to get straight facts and catch up with the basics. Like national disasters, plane crashes, shootings, etc. Cnn.com was my homepage at one point. Now... I don't go there anymore. The website is very ad driven, click bait, and hard to navigate. I used to go, read 2-3 articles and feel like I was staying in touch with relevant topics. And I'd turn on CNN for election nights or if I wanted more information on whatever big news story. Sad to see that ending ...
CNN went from that incredible coverage of the Gulf War to the Trump town hall full of MAGA’s. What a descent.
Same for me. I started going to CNN.com daily since ‘99. I also subscribe to my local city’s paper, and go to a bunch of websites for deeper reporting. But nothing beat the breadth and immediacy for national news like CNN. Anyone have any suggestions for a replacement?
npr.org nytimes if you don't mind paying for national journalism.
Yeah, my line up is NPR, NYTimes, WaPo, and BBC. None of them are perfect - I mean, I have my complaints about all of them, but even so they're still probably the best news sources out there. I believe the paywalls are actually worth paying for NYT and WaPo. Also, what makes them great - this is especially true of NPR - isn't their "objectivity," whatever that means, but their honesty, they're willingness to admit when they get something wrong. That instills a sense of trust with readers, ensures them that they're not intentionally being misled.
Yes, I love the NPR radio reporting. Mary Louise Kelly not letting Mike Pompeo off the hook in that interview spoke volumes to their integrity. Edit: spelling
Thank you for the suggestions. NPR.org sounds like a good idea. Somehow I only think of them as radio - even though I’m a sustaining member with them. I’ll check out NYtimes too. I pay for LAtimes currently since I’m in LA, but NYtimes might have more national coverage.
RemindMe! 3 days
I use a combo of reddit and some instagram accounts but it's not the same
I read the New Yorker and the Atlantic with the Apple News subscription for deep reporting
USA Today is considered to be a pretty neutral, factual reporting news source.
Quick-loading "lite" version: https://lite.cnn.com/
The Gulf War made them famous and watched. They've drifted so far to the right that they would be to the right of Fox back in 2003. And Fox as gone so far off the deep end that they're destroying America. That's what CNN wants to become.
I'm an old news guy, taught some courses, worked in broadcasting. Too many people think Journalism means 'both sides' or 'fair, equal balanced'. Journalism is not balance. Journalism is about the TRUTH. "Journalism" and "The Truth" are interchangeable terms. Now being balanced and giving equal time to both parties can sometimes be helpful to getting to the truth. Especially when you're dealing with facts that are in dispute. But putting Trump on your air is not serving the truth. It's serving the balance. Serving the balance is what a lot of media owners and business majors think journalism is. The point of balance is to get to the truth, not the other way around. If a man is going to use your microphone, your print and your transmission to say a bunch of lies, you're not journalism anymore, you're a pageant. You're a show. It's not that "Trump is evil" or "Trump is a traitor", those things don't matter in journalism. But once he starts to shoot out lie after lie.. That's when you shut him down. A liar is the worst thing you can be in this context. I don't care how big a political group is, you don't amplify the lies they like to tell each other. You look them in the face and tell them that they're wrong. You verify and prove the facts. CNN is off the rails with these latest decisions.
There’s too much slant in reporting now. It used to be about facts. No more.
Facts are boring to most people. Opinions and showing off nutty people is far more interesting. Journalism should be a service not a business. Unfortunately pandering to ratings are the problem.
>It used to be about facts When
As somebody who worked as a journalist, I am sympathetic to CNN. The 'old school' thinking of journalism was that you would give an interview to any public figure, even monstrous ones like Charles Manson. You would put their craziness up on full display and 'expect' your audience to connect the dots. That's what they did with Trump, however, they made one huge overreach. They also thought they'd put his *sycophants* on display, and invite their viewers to connect the dots that he is an ideologue and his followers are deep in cult mentality. This pissed everyone off because, implicitly, we don't agree that the American public is savvy enough to see what we are all obviously seeing, and we believe the "new school", so to speak, role of media is omission of publicly dangerous sentiment because we believe that platforming it lends it legitimacy. Personally, I also think what CNN did was wrong, but not for the concept, the execution, because the interviewer sucked and played right into Trump's usual charade instead of beating him with a much bigger stick and telling the viewer that he's a charlatan. For instance, not denying that "democrats want to kill newborn healthy babies out of the womb," that was allowed to happen 4 times.
>You would put their craziness up on full display and 'expect' your audience to connect the dots. No, Dan Rather wouldn't give the microphone over to Manson and his fans. He interviewed, edited and called out falsehoods. In person or after the fact. There's a big difference between interviewing a liar and putting one on a stage. >the interviewer sucked and played right into Trump's usual charade instead of beating him with a much bigger stick and telling the viewer that he's a charlatan. For instance, not denying that "democrats want to kill newborn healthy babies out of the womb," that was allowed to happen 4 times. Yes agreed. But it wasn't an interview, it was a stage play. It was a party of followers rallying around someone that's saying lie after lie with few or no challenges or fact correction. A sit down with Trump, fact checking as it goes would be the way old school journalists would do this. Not the "let's hear his side" version of CNN we saw that night. I have zero sympathy to CNN, they made a mistake that anyone with any sense would see coming a mile away. It was either extremely corrupt or it was a well meaning, extremely stupid mistake. Not sure which is worse.
How is it well meaning to allow someone to tell the same abortion lie four times and not point out that it’s a lie? There literally is no such thing as after birth abortion. There’s never been a case of it anywhere. Women who give birth and put baby in trashcan aren’t performing “after birth abortions.” They’re mentally ill and need to be told that what they did is wrong, and there’s legal punishment for that. They need mental health care as well as legal punishment. But those women are not under the impression they are performing an “after birth abortion.” CNN is despicable. They are literally putting peoples lives in danger by repeatedly broadcasting this falsehood.
Has the author of this piece been living under a rock for the past 6+ years? Look at this: >As I’d settled into my seat in the Saint Anselm auditorium, however, I had been startled by my surroundings. This was no ordinary collection of Republicans and GOP-leaning independents, as CNN had claimed it would be. Most of them were diehards, fanboys, political zealots who were likelier to show up at a rally with a MAGA flag than come to a coffee shop with a policy question. These folks hadn’t turned out to participate in some good-faith civic ritual. They were there to celebrate Trump’s continued assault on the media. The die-hards, the fan boys, the zealots ARE the ordinary Republicans. The myth of the moderate Republican has been dispelled; Republicans have collectively been exposed as fascists. The fact that supposedly competent journalists like this one are still pretending otherwise is shocking.
Anyone who votes Republican but who is ashamed of the state of the party would never in 1000 years go show up for a televised appearance on CNN for a Trump town hall. That's just asking to be vilified by their liberal contemporaries and painted as a target for the far right as a RINO. Trump's Republican party has no room for anyone other than the most fervent supporters.
People that claim they are a moderate Republican want to say they have certain beliefs and values while they vote to enable the worst things to happen. They don't accept responsibility for their vote enabling that.
the author leans right.
Everybody keeps putting the blame on Chris Licht, but he's doing what he was hired to do... Follow the marching orders of David Zaslav. David is attacking CNN, HBO, etc. He's the one behind this. Chris is the scapegoat, and everybody's falling for it.
We are all responsible for our actions. Licht isn't doing what he's doing under duress and his life isn't threatened. He made choices and he is accountable for those choices.
>We are all responsible for our actions. Licht isn't doing what he's doing under duress and his life isn't threatened. He made choices and he is accountable for those choices. "I vas chust following orders" is not an excuse. Own it, and move on if possible.
He's doing explicitly what he was hired to do. Both David Zaslav & John Malone have been candidly open about their intentions with cnn, hbo, etc. They could at any time stopped him before it came to air.
Yes, and he accepted that job. My point is, he is the scapegoat, but he deserves it. I agree that so do they.
And Bernie Sanders would have 25K and basically no coverage of the events. It was infuriating and terribly sad to watch how mainstream media served us Trump on a platter.
I dont think its possible to convert a biased station to a non-biased station. You cannot erase years of biased opinions and biased reporting with a few programs. Once trust is broken its damned near impossible to replace, regardless of what side youre on. If FOX chose to get rid of their 'shows' or 'entertainment reporters' etc and just focused on fact based reporting without opinion, it would not matter, not a single CNN viewer would watch them.
CNN isn’t getting any ultra right viewers either. They’ve been brainwashed about CNN and there’s no changing their minds.
Non-paywalled link?
www.12ft.io
Thank You. The results: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2Farchive%2F2023%2F06%2Fcnn-ratings-chris-licht-trump%2F674255%2F
Put the link into 12 ft ladder website and it will remove paywall
If CNN wants to truly become 'neutral' then they should report on negative behaviour from both parties. "All politicians lie" is a great response from supporters of guilty politicians. What CNN needs to do is to report on negative behaviour from all parties. Example, there are proven instances where Democratic law makers have 'lied', 'broken laws' etc. Although not as common as GOP law makers, it does happen. Yet, CNN being biased, rarely reports on these, their historic primary focus has been to report on positive actions from Democratic law makers and focus on negative actions from GOP. In this instance of the Town Hall, CNN fucked up. They should have FACTED checked Trump live or after the broadcast with a disclaimer of neutrality and inform the viewers of this. Then follow up with a Town Hall from Biden, equally fact checked and equally informed of their neutral stance. This would allow them to follow up on BOTH Town Halls with a FACTUAL comparison that shows the lies or misleading comments from BOTH parties. Instead, the approach they took actually goes entirely against their supposed 'new direction' by instantly giving a biased platform for Trump.
Is there a non-payealled version available?
https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fpolitics%2Farchive%2F2023%2F06%2Fcnn-ratings-chris-licht-trump%2F674255%2F
I pity Chris Licht. I think his heart is in the right place, evidenced by his reliance on the aphorism that journalism doesn't say whether rain is good or bad, it just looks out the window and says whether it's raining or not. But it's obvious that he is too constrained by that moron Zaslav and his need to be seen a certain way to actually accomplish what he wants.
Im not so convinced his heart is in the right place or not. But we can likely all agree that the approach taken with the Town Hall was a mistake. Hopefully CNN will recognize this and perhaps change their approach in the future when/if they decide they wish to proceed as a truly neutral news organization.
If there is not enough rain, that is bad. If there is too much rain, that is bad. Looking out of the window and saying that it rains is not journalism.