Poll of the Day > Do you believe CNN is a reliable source of information?

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2
ParanoidObsessive 12/08/17 2:34:36 PM #51:	Four times in my life, I've known the details of a relatively significant news story by being close enough to it in real life to have first-hand information, before it was picked up by local or global news sources. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those times, the eventual news report that came of it was entirely inaccurate. And I don't mean "Oh, they got some of the names or details wrong" inaccurate, I mean "changing the entire fucking meaning of events" inaccurate. Like a sack full of bullshit that bore no real resemblance to what actually happened, and which painted people involved in an entirely different light from what they were actually like. In none of those cases was any sort of retraction or apology issued after the fact - the information was simply misreported and then they moved on to the next breaking story (ie, the same way the news made it sound like we were all going to die from the bird flu, then never mentioned it again once they realized it was a non-story). Most news has become poorly-researched sensationalist garbage at best and deliberately skewed propaganda by people with a political agenda at worst. This isn't new (see also, "yellow journalism"), but it sure as fuck isn't "news" either. mastermix3000 posted... Be honest, what news source really tries to be accurate rather than quick to report now? This is the real problem. The 24-news cycle and the desperate rush to be the first site to get a scoop means a lot of things get reported without any real degree of fact-checking, because making sure your story is actually TRUE takes too long. That, combined with most major news sources just getting their news from AP and Reuters means that, if the first link in the news chain gets a story wrong, EVERY subsequent source is going to get it wrong, and then you get the really shitty phenomenon of people believing a story because they heard it from a dozen different places, not realizing that all of those places got the story from the same place, and that original place was reporting misinformation. The worst part is, in the rush to be first, and to only focus on the ratings-driving stories, most news has become sensationalist as fuck, and never offer retractions for their own fuck-ups. That would waste time that could be better spent rushing out the next sensationalist news story in a desperate bid to get ratings (or clicks on your site). Not that retractions would even help, since there've been psychological studies that prove retractions mostly just reinforce the original accusation in human brains anyway (which is why mudslinging politicians are perfectly happy to slander an opponent and then issue a retraction later, because most people will only remember the accusation, not the correction). But it means that people have basically had their entire lives ruined by a news station desperate for a slight uptick in ratings, who couldn't be bothered to verify whether or not what they were reporting was even true. This isn't really new, though. This has been a thing for more than a decade (and probably quite a while before that as well). We've just reached a point where there are SO MANY sources of information now (and we've become so much more cynical as a culture in the last few decades), we can more effectively detect the bullshit for what it is. --- "Wall of Text'D!" --- oldskoolplayr76 "POwned again." --- blight family <cite>ParanoidObsessive posted [p:891833155] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote>Four times in my life, I've known the details of a relatively significant news story by being close enough to it in real life to have first-hand information, before it was picked up by local or global news sources. EVERY SINGLE ONE of those times, the eventual news report that came of it was entirely inaccurate. And I don't mean "Oh, they got some of the names or details wrong" inaccurate, I mean "changing the entire fucking meaning of events" inaccurate. Like a sack full of bullshit that bore no real resemblance to what actually happened, and which painted people involved in an entirely different light from what they were actually like. In none of those cases was any sort of retraction or apology issued after the fact - the information was simply misreported and then they moved on to the next breaking story (ie, the same way the news made it sound like we were all going to die from the bird flu, then never mentioned it again once they realized it was a non-story). Most news has become poorly-researched sensationalist garbage at best and deliberately skewed propaganda by people with a political agenda at worst. This isn't new (see also, "yellow journalism"), but it sure as fuck isn't "news" either. <cite>mastermix3000 posted...</cite> <quote>Be honest, what news source really tries to be accurate rather than quick to report now?</quote> This is the real problem. The 24-news cycle and the desperate rush to be the first site to get a scoop means a lot of things get reported without any real degree of fact-checking, because making sure your story is actually TRUE takes too long. That, combined with most major news sources just getting their news from AP and Reuters means that, if the first link in the news chain gets a story wrong, EVERY subsequent source is going to get it wrong, and then you get the really shitty phenomenon of people believing a story because they heard it from a dozen different places, not realizing that all of those places got the story from the same place, and that original place was reporting misinformation. The worst part is, in the rush to be first, and to only focus on the ratings-driving stories, most news has become sensationalist as fuck, and never offer retractions for their own fuck-ups. That would waste time that could be better spent rushing out the next sensationalist news story in a desperate bid to get ratings (or clicks on your site). Not that retractions would even help, since there've been psychological studies that prove retractions mostly just reinforce the original accusation in human brains anyway (which is why mudslinging politicians are perfectly happy to slander an opponent and then issue a retraction later, because most people will only remember the accusation, not the correction). But it means that people have basically had their entire lives ruined by a news station desperate for a slight uptick in ratings, who couldn't be bothered to verify whether or not what they were reporting was even true. This isn't really new, though. This has been a thing for more than a decade (and probably quite a while before that as well). We've just reached a point where there are SO MANY sources of information now (and we've become so much more cynical as a culture in the last few decades), we can more effectively detect the bullshit for what it is. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/08/17 2:54:03 PM #52:	GastroFan posted... What gets me is that every time a news organization puts on 1)one of the president's unredacted tweets, 2)shows a video released by the WH where the president says something really lame brained and offensive and 3) reports on any news that might be against this president, they're labeled 'fake news' by the masses. Nobody had any problem trashing Obama (Fox News and every right wing radio station in the country called him every racist name in the book, if not more); yet little old creampuff can't take criticism of his policies or behavior? How low have we sunk in this country? 1) Then plays Littlefinger's game where they imagine the worst possible interpretation of his words and pretend that it's true. Or they only look at one Tweet in a chain. At any rate, Twitter is perfect for creating your own context for anything somebody says between the character limit and nature of the platform. (Not to mention which tweets they choose to focus on.) 2) When it's a video, the clip is truncated to remove context. Opposition news outlets do this to all politicians and to craft an agenda. 3) Many of the outlets you're defending are doing the same thing that conservative did to Obama. However, because you agree with these outlets and disagree with those, you selectively choose to call out some while defending others. GastroFan posted... (Fox News and every right wing radio station in the country called him every racist name in the book, if not more) lolwut? waterdeepchu posted... They don't report on only things that make Trump look bad. They report on everything he does. The problem is, he doesn't do anything good. Which by exclusively looking for and focusing on generally manufactured controversies is the kind of perception you build in a gullible audience who doesn't want to do anything more than read headlines and bulletpoints. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:891834369] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>GastroFan posted...</cite> <quote>What gets me is that every time a news organization puts on 1)one of the president's unredacted tweets, 2)shows a video released by the WH where the president says something really lame brained and offensive and 3) reports on any news that might be against this president, they're labeled 'fake news' by the masses. Nobody had any problem trashing Obama (Fox News and every right wing radio station in the country called him every racist name in the book, if not more); yet little old creampuff can't take criticism of his policies or behavior? How low have we sunk in this country?</quote> 1) Then plays Littlefinger's game where they imagine the worst possible interpretation of his words and pretend that it's true. Or they only look at one Tweet in a chain. At any rate, Twitter is perfect for creating your own context for anything somebody says between the character limit and nature of the platform. (Not to mention which tweets they choose to focus on.) 2) When it's a video, the clip is truncated to remove context. Opposition news outlets do this to all politicians and to craft an agenda. 3) Many of the outlets you're defending are doing the same thing that conservative did to Obama. However, because you agree with these outlets and disagree with those, you selectively choose to call out some while defending others. <cite>GastroFan posted...</cite> <quote>(Fox News and every right wing radio station in the country called him every racist name in the book, if not more)</quote> lolwut? <cite>waterdeepchu posted...</cite> <quote>They don't report on only things that make Trump look bad. They report on everything he does. The problem is, he doesn't do anything good.</quote> Which by exclusively looking for and focusing on generally manufactured controversies is the kind of perception you build in a gullible audience who doesn't want to do anything more than read headlines and bulletpoints.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sand_Flare 12/08/17 3:22:11 PM #53:	The duplicity of most so-called journalists is absolutely flabbergasting. Most of them are simply liars. There's no other word for it. You'll know what I mean if you follow these scum-bags on twitter. They're constantly patting each other on the back after they successfully push a new yellow piece through the pipeline. Not just CNN, but rather most, if not all media outlets are the same. <cite>Sand_Flare posted [p:891835987] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote>The duplicity of most so-called journalists is absolutely flabbergasting. Most of them are simply liars. There's no other word for it. You'll know what I mean if you follow these scum-bags on twitter. They're constantly patting each other on the back after they successfully push a new yellow piece through the pipeline. Not just CNN, but rather most, if not all media outlets are the same.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Voxwik 12/08/17 6:16:50 PM #54:	It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press. <cite>Voxwik posted [p:891845785] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote>It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa 12/08/17 7:20:18 PM #55:	Voxwik posted... It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press. Nothing free about CNN. That shit is bought and paid for. All the major news networks are comprised of talking heads paid to push an agenda. These guys will get fired in an instant if they go against the grain <cite>OhhhJa posted [p:891849129] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Voxwik posted...</cite> <quote>It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press.</quote> Nothing free about CNN. That shit is bought and paid for. All the major news networks are comprised of talking heads paid to push an agenda. These guys will get fired in an instant if they go against the grain</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Zeus 12/08/17 10:41:12 PM #56:	Voxwik posted... It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press. And what's terrifying is your blind faith in media outlets which have "delegitimized" themselves through false and faulty coverage. --- (\/)(\/)\|-\| In Zeus We Trust: All Others Pay Cash <cite>Zeus posted [p:891859582] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>Voxwik posted...</cite> <quote>It is terrifying the extremists are succeeding in trying to delegitimize free press.</quote> And what's terrifying is your blind faith in media outlets which have "delegitimized" themselves through false and faulty coverage.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CNN 12/09/17 1:12:21 AM #57:	TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What --- http://imgur.com/BiWdrbE <cite>CNN posted [p:891866836] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster 12/10/17 2:03:35 PM #58:	CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What You are an unreliable source of information. <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:891948686] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> You are an unreliable source of information.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CNN 12/10/17 4:32:51 PM #59:	TheWorstPoster posted... CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What You are an unreliable source of information. You're not the worst poster. --- http://imgur.com/BiWdrbE <cite>CNN posted [p:891957748] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> You are an unreliable source of information.</quote> You're not the worst poster.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheWorstPoster 12/10/17 4:37:14 PM #60:	CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What You are an unreliable source of information. You're not the worst poster. See what I mean? <cite>TheWorstPoster posted [p:891958050] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> You are an unreliable source of information.</quote> You're not the worst poster.</quote> See what I mean?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
BlackScythe0 12/11/17 7:27:09 PM #61:	CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What You are an unreliable source of information. You're not the worst poster. Hey! You're supposed to make suggestions, not bluntly state lies. <cite>BlackScythe0 posted [p:892033781] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> You are an unreliable source of information.</quote> You're not the worst poster.</quote> Hey! You're supposed to make suggestions, not bluntly state lies.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
FrndNhbrHdCEman 12/11/17 7:45:15 PM #62:	CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... CNN posted... TheWorstPoster posted... @CNN What You are an unreliable source of information. You're not the worst poster. Justa 30 y/o creeper. --- Official nosy neighbor and gossip http://imgur.com/uGKwGsK <cite>FrndNhbrHdCEman posted [p:892034885] in Do you bel... [t:76072870]...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote><cite>CNN posted...</cite> <quote><cite>TheWorstPoster posted...</cite> <quote>@CNN</quote> What</quote> You are an unreliable source of information.</quote> You're not the worst poster.</quote> Justa 30 y/o creeper.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2

Poll of the Day > Do you believe CNN is a reliable source of information? (+) Yeah! (+)

Poll of the Day > Do you believe CNN is a reliable source of information?