Talk:CNN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the CNN article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
Archive
Archives
1, 2


Contents

[edit] Atheism

If I had a source, I'd put in the criticism section, CNN's arrogant & obnoxious behaviour towards athiest guests. The CNN personalities always side with the religous quests. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what sources are for. Usually, if there is no reputable, credible a source for research on that, it's a personal point of view. That's how "criticism" sections get way out of hand.—DMCer™ 02:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Touchscreen thing

Does anyone know what that big touchscreen is called? The one they use for their election coverage to do the caucus simulations, election maps, etc? It's really nifty whatever it is. :-) Thompsontough (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently called the "Magic Wall", and if I can find an appropriate place to put it, I'm going to add this source, [1] -- RoninBK T C 04:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion at Talk:Fox News Channel#Conflict over ratings with CNN --Alegoo92 (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction tag

I am removing the tag on the mainpage. The issue seemed to be Fox News claiming that it had more viewers while CNN claims to be America's number one news source. Every business will use puffery to tout themselves. This is not a contradiction, but rather an accurate reflection of true marketing slogans. Rooot (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CNN Center Damage

Should this be included in this page or be on another page all together?


I can start writing up a page but it wont be up for a few hours due to more storms here in atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordguitar (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You might try working over at n:Possible tornado hits Atlanta -- RoninBK T C 07:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism section regarding Tibet

The recent criticism section on Tibet appears to lack objectivity. Namely, it did not mention that CNN had responded to the criticism. The information is also very current and the trend of Chinese people using "don't be cnn" ("stop lying") may be a temporary rather than permanent vocabulary. Please review the section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.188.87.114 (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The CNN effect

Even though its slogan said"The Most Trusted Name in News",CNN have been accused of bending the truth of the 2008 unrest in tibet. The website "anti-cnn.com" is established to expose the lies and distorted facts to western medias, showing how the coverage of the whole riot from the western medias was biased or even manipulated to some extent, declares" We are not against the western medis, but against the lies and fabricated stories in the media "

This really should have been placed in the controversy section; however it was misplaced and lacks objectivity. Please note that there are several passages such as these about the current situation in Tibet that lack objectivity and contain grammatical errors. Please review. Inetlom (talk) 09:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tibet Issue

I also think the Tibet section is highly biased. It seems to have been written by the Chinese government. Check the bad grammar! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.81.78.179 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont think its fair to accuse the Chinese government on this piece unless wiki's IP scanner shows up as such. I do agree with the original editor how CNN did in fact cropped images to produce a more dramatic appeal, however we should also present how CNN had responded as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.252.70.18 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 216.252.70.18, we should add this section back. It would be NPOV if we acknowledge the existence of the controversy of CNN's report on Tibet, while presenting the view of both sides. Ziguang (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I added both the Chinese allegation and the CNN response to the incident. Though for future reference I think it's unfair if anything contrary to majority opinion is labeled as "written by the Chinese government". Whether you like them or not, I'm pretty sure they have other things to worry about. Gnip (talk) 4:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

it is obivously bias, but did you notice what happened during the SF torch run? maybe the mayor and strong chinese presence reminded them that it may turn into a full out riot on US. it will be the joke of the century if people said, "SF is the tibet of USA"... i think they are just playing to popular opinion instead of reporting news independently. i am boycotting CNN and BBC of my cable subscription. Akinkhoo (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Talking about bias... Dude, why don't you guys come to China and see for yourself and see how much of that negative image of China that your "unbiased" media has made you believe is true... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.245.115.4 (talk) 02:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, a sentence has been added to the general intro at the top of the page: "In April 2008, CNN has given a new meaning to the Chinese community. It refers to fake, dishonest, hypocritical, and tautology stories." The incorrect grammar aside, this is highly inappropriate. This area should include a simple introduction of CNN as a news organisation. Bias controversy over Tibet should be confined to the section about Tibet controversy. The opinions of the "Chinese community" should not be part of the general introduction of CNN as a news organisation, especially since those opinions are not universally held. Stick to the universally recognised facts in the intro. Controversy can be treated later where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.45.241.57 (talk) 03:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed the comment has been removed. My thanks to whomvever has done so.

[edit] Merger proposal

 It has been suggested that CNN World News be merged into this page or section. (Discuss)

I think we should add in the info from the CNN world news page, and just redirect the CNN world news page to CNN --AndyCook (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1.5 Billion???

'available to more than 1.5 billion people in over 212 countries and territories.' - This seems incredibly unlikely. At the very least it needs a citation. 81.77.191.254 (talk) 12:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a fact tag to it Jons63 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Why is it that FOX News page makes sure to tell you about the "right-wing bias" in the opening paragraphs, but we are not allowed to put the same but as a left wing-bias (for which it is charged as by critics)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please add citations to back your claims. Avoid using weasel words when making claims. --Kukini háblame aquí 23:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations? Citations that FOX News has the same criticisms in its opening paragraphs, or citations that CNN is highly criticized? Excuse my noobish-ness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.77.23 (talk) 23:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lists

This article has too many lists. The list of anchors was the clearly the worst of them, and I have moved that out to its own article List of CNN anchors. Another thing to consider moving out into its own list is the long list of shows. Are there any thoughts about this suggestion? siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scandals

How come there is no mention of CNN scandals, such as Peter Arnett and "Tailwind", or CNN's CEO admitting that the network ignored Saddam Hussein's atrocities so they could keep their Baghdad bureau open, or his later having to resign after accusing American soldiers of murdering Iraqi journalists?


the following new paragraph should be added to the main article

[edit] CNN Major Primary Corruption in Democrat Primaries

  • Almost non stop for approx 15 months, CNN which has endorsed Sen Obama, ALSO, gave Sen Obama coverage all day while esp bad mouthing all day long Sen Clinton. When you calculate out what this was worth

in what was in effect free advertising FOR Obama and using $ 1 million a minute for air time on a channel as CNN, you come up with a number of approximately $ 300 billion in free advertising FOR Sen Obama (if you watch CNN you saw their ads for Obama all day long at least 50 % of the entire day).

  • All of that is highly illegal as the FCC (Federal Communications Commision - US federal agency in charge of governing air time on TV stations and radio stations) is supposed to REQUIRE as a matter of LAW "equal time" for all candidates (slightly ignored for minor candidates but supposed to be the law for all major candidates).
  • And while a channel as CNN or Fox etc CAN endorse a candidate as Sen Obama, it can NOT give, not 100s

but 1000s of times more air time to the candidate it has endorsed over the other major candidates. It is supposed to be giving by law "equal time".

  • BUT CNN did this from April of 2007 to the present time FOR Sen Obama and did it non stop. And lately this ongoing attempt to buy the election as president FOR Obama with 100s of billions of free air time for Obama , CNN has continued while also claiming the squeaker win by Obama over Clinton was a "movement" when it was a squeaker win and only then after that $ 300 billion in free advertising for Sen Obama, that Sen Clinton did not get.
  • And lately, CNN escalates all this, seeking to revise history itself, claiming that Robert Kennedy was huge god-like civil rights hero / icon , when he never was; and that whole recent story by CNN about Kenndy is ONLY to pump up Obama using Robert Kennedy, as in all those recent CNN stories all day long about Kennedy, they / CNN talking heads after mentioning how wonderful Robert Kennedy was in working for civil rights for blacks, etc, they immediately instantly add that Obama is the same, when Obama has never done about any work for any civil rights except couple summers strolling about in South Chicago.
  • This CNN non stop ad campaign FOR Sen Obama amounts to the largest corruption in US Political History.

and makes Obama's win over Clinton in reality, a purchase of that win by CNN by massive corruption and its free $300 billion ad campaign for Obama.

  • Why? Apparently the owner of CNN , Time Warner, whose chairman is Richard D Parsons - a black person,

has given those marching orders to CNN to force this approach of massive corrupt and endless free ads for Obama. (CNN owned by Turner Broadcasting which is owned by Time Warner.)

  • This same approach of massive illegal free time and corruption FOR Obama is continuing in the Democrat vs Republican campaing of Obama vs McCain. With Sen Obama, given by CNN all day long coverage and Sen McCain bad mouth 1000 ways all day long. *Footnote- FCC has slowly been investigating all this.

Ref FCC file no. "CIMS00000840522 - fairness". /s/ FCC ombudsman jr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.1.178 (talk) 00:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)