CNN Sucks!!!

[PartyOf5]

A media that does not criticize the government, is not a media worth having.

Neither is a media that only criticizes one party, while aiding the other.

Disagree. That it sucks, is incompetent, biased and sensationalist and is more about validating beliefs than challenging them, isn't an argument for not having it. It's an argument for having, or creating, something better as an alternative.

They can serve as examples not to follow.

I disagree with your disagreement. It's propaganda. CNN is not worth having.

If none of the media criticizes the government (your statement), then no, it is not worth having. If none of the media criticizes one party of the government (which was my point), they are not worth having either. I feel like you moved the goalposts with the reason for your disagreement.

[Speaker to Animals]

There is nothing worthwhile about a Lügenpresse.

[BjornP]

Neither is a media that only criticizes one party, while aiding the other.

Disagree. That it sucks, is incompetent, biased and sensationalist and is more about validating beliefs than challenging them, isn't an argument for not having it. It's an argument for having, or creating, something better as an alternative.

They can serve as examples not to follow.

I disagree with your disagreement. It's propaganda. CNN is not worth having.

If none of the media criticizes the government (your statement), then no, it is not worth having. If none of the media criticizes one party of the government (which was my point), they are not worth having either. I feel like you moved the goalposts with the reason for your disagreement.

I disagree with your disagreement on my disagreement.

Media does not equal "trutstworthy news site". When I wrote "A media that does not criticize the government is not worth having" that isn't just meant to apply to trustworthy, professional journalists and the news sites they work for. It's a matter of principle. That principle being called a free press and freedom of speech. The professionalism of the press, and the quality of someone's speech is a seperate issue.

CNN is not worth having... in your cable package if you value professional news standards, sure. Breitbart's an even more shitty news source than CNN, and clearly aided the Trump camp while criticizing anyone else, but they're worth having in the same sense that a bus full of passengers get a learning experience out of one passenger acting rude to all the other passengers. The rude passenger may legally be rude, but all the other passengers learn or are reinforced in the notion that the rude passenger overstepped the unspoken social boundaries.

People learn best about what is bad journalism, by actually seeing and reading it AND being able to compare it to quality journalism.

And yes, I realize that requires someone tells them what they're reading is bad journalism. And that can be a nearly unsurmountable challenge if they simply trust a news source on its word because it affirms some pre-existing beliefs of theirs. To that end, De o posted a useful list of "characterics of historical thinking" some time ago, that is also useful for reading modern news and sources. T

http://www.envisionthepast.com/historical-thinking/

[Speaker to Animals]

Breitbart is a partisan blog, not news, and never denied their bias. Comparing that to CNN, who sells themselves as objective news while really being propaganda, makes no sense.

Unlike CNN, Breitbart tellks the truth. They just might not tell you about stuff that harms their social and political objective (which is basically to defeat cultural Marxism and win the culture war). So you still have to find other sources for the information the Breitbart ignores.

CNN just lies to you. That's propaganda.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Breitbart is a partisan blog, not news, and never denied their bias. Comparing that to CNN, who sells themselves as objective news while really being propaganda, makes no sense.

Unlike CNN, Breitbart tellks the truth. They just might not tell you about stuff that harms their social and political objective (which is basically to defeat cultural Marxism and win the culture war). So you still have to find other sources for the information the Breitbart ignores.

CNN just lies to you. That's propaganda.

Source?

[Speaker to Animals]

Breitbart is a partisan blog, not news, and never denied their bias. Comparing that to CNN, who sells themselves as objective news while really being propaganda, makes no sense.

Unlike CNN, Breitbart tellks the truth. They just might not tell you about stuff that harms their social and political objective (which is basically to defeat cultural Marxism and win the culture war). So you still have to find other sources for the information the Breitbart ignores.

CNN just lies to you. That's propaganda.

Source?

For what? That CNN gets caught lying all the time? Are you serious?

[BjornP]

Fair point about Bretibart not really being a news site. The comparison was simply meant to highlight both of them being privately owned and both of them spinning news stories in their favor.

Propaganda is either lying about or manipulating facts to advance your interests. It's only in recent post-WW2 decades the word took on a negative meaning. Advertising is propaganda, for example. For private companies, it's fair to be propagandistic, imo. Applies to all news sites.

CNN propagandizes while trying to make themselves look neutral and objective, I agree with that. A video I once saw of the CNN crew celebrating Hillary wasn't excatly a subtle evidence of that. Personally I think they're ridiculous in how they're a 24h news channel and somehow managed to show less background information and fewer debates about events than our Danish non-24h news channel public service TV.

But if you want objective, neutral news reporting, the better option is to pour some more money into a public service news channel, which owes nothing to no ideological shareholders, but instead the interests of the citizens. How it should be managed to guarentee the best sort of neutrality, you decide, but it seems to me the best choice as a general solution to severely biased reporting. I doubt private media companies will abandon the profitable model of "value-affirmation" style news that, imo, are destroying the foundation of objective journalism.

[DBTrek]

But if you want objective, neutral news reporting, the better option is to pour some more money into a public service news channel, which owes nothing to no ideological shareholders, but instead the interests of the citizens.

Yes, perhaps a non-partisan, moderate, non-agenda-pushing public organization like NPR, eh?

HAHAHAHAhahhaaAHAHAHAHahahahaAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAWHOOOOOOOO!!!

[SuburbanFarmer]

Breitbart is a partisan blog, not news, and never denied their bias. Comparing that to CNN, who sells themselves as objective news while really being propaganda, makes no sense.

Unlike CNN, Breitbart tellks the truth. They just might not tell you about stuff that harms their social and political objective (which is basically to defeat cultural Marxism and win the culture war). So you still have to find other sources for the information the Breitbart ignores.

CNN just lies to you. That's propaganda.

Source?

For what? That CNN gets caught lying all the time? Are you serious?

Well, they certainly have begun to twist stories around, like Faux Noise, I'd just like to see objective evidence of outright lying.

[PartyOf5]

I'll agree with you that we disagree.

There are plenty of media that do not criticize the government that are worth having, as long as they are not the only media. The ones that do criticize the government right now are overwhelmingly bought and paid for by one of the 2 parties that have power. It's gone beyond being rude and into full blown propaganda. They are working every day, 24/7 to undermine one party for the benefit of the other. Facts and truth no longer matter, it's their team vs. the other team. That is no longer a media that is worth having, unless you are a dictator trying to control the masses.