# Media Bias (CNN) Thread No. 1,583



## JBS (Jan 9, 2016)

Notice how this person is *not *referred to as

a. a woman
b. a protestor
c. someone disturbing the rally

She's specifically referred to as "a Muslim".

CNN: Stoking the flames of hate and discord, while reinforcing the biased narrative that Conservatives are xenophobic morons.


----------



## TH15 (Jan 9, 2016)

That anyone can honestly take CNN's "reporting" seriously anymore defies logic.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 9, 2016)

Since they are technically "entertainers" and not news reporters anymore...I think they were very successful in achieving their mission.

However, I still think they are clowns!


----------



## JBS (Jan 9, 2016)

That would be roughly 15 to 25 million people, depending on the programming content.

I notice CNN at every airport, café, doctor's office, restaurant, Laundromat, and hotel lobby I've ever stayed at or passed through.

Their drift to the left has been increasing in the past few years, no doubt, but still people watch and get informed through this source.


Here, a CNN Guest called the NRA "a terrorist organization", and the CNN host didn't challenge the comment.



> After Parker, [snip] called the NRA a "*terrorist organization,"* Costello did not challenge the label, and then ended up inviting Parker to suggest questions for her pro-gun guest, Erich Pratt of Gun Owners of America, two of which she later posed to him as her first two questions. - See more at: On CNN, Parker Calls NRA 'Terrorist' Group, Host Is Tougher on Pro-Gun Guest


 







TH15 said:


> That anyone can honestly take CNN's "reporting" seriously anymore defies logic.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 9, 2016)

This is my favorite topic. Pravda reporting and "news" coverage is alive and well here in the USA. There is little, if any, professional journalism once you leave local and area news. The network coverage is nothing more than shaping and spinning of the news. There is  enough real news to fill about an hour of airtime, the other 23 hours are editorial events, and nothing more. There seems to be a pretty strong smell of political influence to just about everything reported. The trained reporters who have made it into the "varsity", should hang their heads in shame; because they have stepped away from true reporting. If you want a perfect example of of how bad the "news" coverage has been, look at Bryan Williams, and how long he got away with "reporting" shaped and spun pure fabrications. He is not the only one, just the poster child of today's news coverage at the top. For me, 30 minutes of local and regional news gets my attention, because it is: 1) Close to home, and easily verifiable, 2) It is real journalistic news. After that, about  30 minutes of world and national news from a network source to see how much they are bending their product. Beyond that, my interest falls away.

My $.02. Rant over, and back into my wee little cave here in The Valley.


----------



## Brill (Jan 10, 2016)

In EVERY Ops Center that I have been in, CNN is exclusively the source for breaking news.


----------



## AWP (Jan 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> In EVERY Ops Center that I have been in, CNN is exclusively the source for breaking news.



It is very good at breaking news, but it sucks beyond an early warning system.

When Big Windy 25 went down outside of Ghazni in 2005, we saw it on CNN before the TOC could even alert the QRF. We literally watched the report as a runner came into the DFAC telling the QRF to roll out.


----------

