We hear this phrase daily on TV (if you watch CNN at least). I would like to hear the opionions of the board member here. This is not about the war coverage or anything specific. Just in general, what level of trust do you have in CNN? And is it your most trusted news source, and if not, which is (if there's any specific)?
The most trusted name in news
- Thread starter Humus
- Start date
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
I don't know about the regular CNN channel (because I can't stand Larry King 
) so I just watch the Headline news. Often they jump the gun, or are in such a hurry to get the story out first that they leave out key details, and sometimes add some that don't belong. I could forgive that, it happens, but they never take the time to correct the story. Until recently, though, that was the only news channel I received. Now I watch FOXNews, and I'd rate them at around a 7 for accuracy.
) so I just watch the Headline news. Often they jump the gun, or are in such a hurry to get the story out first that they leave out key details, and sometimes add some that don't belong. I could forgive that, it happens, but they never take the time to correct the story. Until recently, though, that was the only news channel I received. Now I watch FOXNews, and I'd rate them at around a 7 for accuracy.Skywalker, i don't know if you are just quite conservative so you like to hear a reflection of what you think (from listening to FoxNews), or anything else, but I can guarantee you that Fox news misrepresents stuff on purpose fairly often, CNN might as well, but I don't watch CNN either (or headline News) because I have also seen them misrepresent things.
I have seen Fox news effectively lie twice in the last week, the cut a quote to make it look like it said something other than what was actually stated then they went on to analyze the misrepresentation, using the false quote to back up what they said, that is blatant, I saw the full interview and quote later on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and I was pretty appaled.
I have seen Fox news effectively lie twice in the last week, the cut a quote to make it look like it said something other than what was actually stated then they went on to analyze the misrepresentation, using the false quote to back up what they said, that is blatant, I saw the full interview and quote later on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer and I was pretty appaled.
horvendile
Regular
Tagrineth said:
That would explain them running into problems.
Okay, that was probably tasteless. It's too early in the morning to tell. :?
no offennce but those who voted 1 or 2, what the heck are you smoking. I can see votes from 3 and up but when you vote that low your saying that most of the stories they run are outright lies, or fabrications. If your voting 1 or 2 your saying that they are as good as the INQ. I dont like cnn, personally i do like foxnews, but thats because I like some of the points of view, but i can filter that out to get a better picture of the news. but i would still give cnn a high score(6-7).
later,
later,
MrsSkywalker
Newcomer
I am a Republican and I admit I like a channel that's not afraid to say "God Bless America". It's an opinion poll and I gave my opinion.
I live in very rural area. Because of this, I only have two 24/7 news sources for TV, CNN and FOXNews, and I trust FOXNews a helluva lot more than CNN! However, I don't take anything said on any one news channel as the 100% truth, that's why I rated FOXNews at a 7 and not 10. People make mistakes and add opinion, it's just human nature. I take what I see on the boob tube and compare it to several online news sources including: USA Today, MSNBC, CNNonline, WMURTV (local news), WNEMTV (local news in MI where my sister lives), WVTV (local news in VT where my other sister lives...hey, gotta know what's going on around them ), and then the gaming news sites b/c no TV news sources covers gaming properly. These I seriously check every single day...I'm kind of a news hound As I said, I don't put 100% faith in any of them, I read, compare, and realize that the whole truth is offered in bits and pieces from all sources.
I live in very rural area. Because of this, I only have two 24/7 news sources for TV, CNN and FOXNews, and I trust FOXNews a helluva lot more than CNN! However, I don't take anything said on any one news channel as the 100% truth, that's why I rated FOXNews at a 7 and not 10. People make mistakes and add opinion, it's just human nature. I take what I see on the boob tube and compare it to several online news sources including: USA Today, MSNBC, CNNonline, WMURTV (local news), WNEMTV (local news in MI where my sister lives), WVTV (local news in VT where my other sister lives...hey, gotta know what's going on around them
), and then the gaming news sites b/c no TV news sources covers gaming properly. These I seriously check every single day...I'm kind of a news hound As I said, I don't put 100% faith in any of them, I read, compare, and realize that the whole truth is offered in bits and pieces from all sources.my point is that all medias have some angle, but to say you cant trust basic information from a major media source says alot. I watch CNN, MSNBC, FOxnews, which gives me a pretty good view of whats happening. No offence, but from posts from europeans I have noticed that their medias make alot of assumptions too. These foreign medias also omit alot of info. See posts in thread"what has suprised you so far" about the missile that struck Iran.
later,
later,
No, it simply means that their viewers will be given an intentionally skewed view on the world compared to reality.
Most networks have this tendency. They select a day's programming and that choice of leads to follow, guests to invite and questions to be asked are usually created by a small handful of people. The motives behind the selectivity is what determines bias. Bias isn't what can be considered lies or fabrication, but it can paint false ideals/concepts if both sides are not explored.
A good example are the protests. Their interviews were conducted on the streets with leaders of the protests. They put an emphasis on how "peaceful" they were, didn't approach questions that might yield insight to other events and generally put a positive spin on them. More conservative networks included images of the destruction and vandalism that occurred, as well as included interviews with police officers that had to contain and arrest hundreds for violence as well as protest leaders that lived under the illusion that no violence had been occurring.
Couple this with the absolute incompetence of the people they have on staff and it's baffling how CNN can be labeled a source of "news".. people need to explore multiple sources in order to get a more complete viewpoint of what's really going on.
MrsSkywalker said:
And that is why I was confused, I thought you meant 7 out of 7, like in the poll absolute unwavering faith, not 7/10 like you meant. But I agree the best scenario is to get a variety of sources and decide what seems likely based on all the info you can disseminate.
Deflection
Newcomer
Psikotiko said:
And your a European, go figure
Sharkfood said:
Yup!
I'll leave you with some other good advice I read...
John Novak said:
Personally I voted 4. They do report most information fairly reliably. They also editorialize like every other news source. However, that doesn't mean I trust them without checking other sources all the time as well.
I voted 6, and I would probably vote the same for any other respectable news station. I can't recall ever seeing something being reported as a fact on any news program only to have it turn out to be completely inaccurate. I also know that every news program will include in its reports a certain ammount of speculation and unconfirmed stories, as well as an opinionated view while summarizing known events. Perhaps the reason some view CNN or other stations as untrustworthy or slanted, is that they assume everything being reported is believed by the station to be absolute fact, regardless of what context it's being used in. I don't watch the news with that notion, which I guess enables me to recognize the things that are being reported which are confirmed as true. That's why when CNN says the army has reported that a helicoper has gone down, I'm reasonably sure that MSNBC is reporting the same thing.
I guess the point I'm making is, I don't view inaccurate speculation or the reporting of unconfirmed rumors that turn out to be false as bad or misinformitive reporting, as long as it's reasonably obvious that it was being reported as speculation or an unconfirmed rumor.
I guess the point I'm making is, I don't view inaccurate speculation or the reporting of unconfirmed rumors that turn out to be false as bad or misinformitive reporting, as long as it's reasonably obvious that it was being reported as speculation or an unconfirmed rumor.
Dan Rather reported the wrong speed for the Space Shuttle a few times too, IIRC. I don't view that as making the evening news unbelievable without checking every other source first. Reporters are human and prone to error, but to me this poll is not asking about whether or not you think there are some singularities in reporting, but rather if you think they're outright reporting lies with the knowledge they are doing so. Do you honestly believe that whoever was responsible for the "18 x c" incident (which I didn't see, unfortunately) has a solid knowledge of physics and knew that it was impossible to be going 18 times the speed of light? Do you think it's merely possible they simply got the speed of light confused with the speed of sound?
Hmmm, this was interesting, and quite surprising too. I expected an average of 4 or so, I rated them a 5 myself.
To me CNN reports news quite well. It shows that it's an american network, but that's forgivable. The nationality shows through in pretty much every network. The only problem I have with CNN is what they decide is news, the contents are often narrow (but perhaps deep). For instance when that Iranian airplane went down killing 300+ people 2 or 3 weeks ago I recall reading a fairly long article about it on a Swedish newspapers website before I got home from work. Once home I turned on CNN and expected to hear more about it, but I didn't hear a single word about it. Instead I got more updates about the dog that was rescued from an ice floe (as had for some reason been on the news for like 5 days) telling that the dog had a new home now. Over the days thereafter I saw it once on that rolling text on the bottom of the screen, but that was all. Other news channels covered the accident as I would expect. Today there seams to be nothing but the war on CNN. Watching for instance CBC news there are other stuff going on in the world too.
To me CNN reports news quite well. It shows that it's an american network, but that's forgivable. The nationality shows through in pretty much every network. The only problem I have with CNN is what they decide is news, the contents are often narrow (but perhaps deep). For instance when that Iranian airplane went down killing 300+ people 2 or 3 weeks ago I recall reading a fairly long article about it on a Swedish newspapers website before I got home from work. Once home I turned on CNN and expected to hear more about it, but I didn't hear a single word about it. Instead I got more updates about the dog that was rescued from an ice floe (as had for some reason been on the news for like 5 days) telling that the dog had a new home now. Over the days thereafter I saw it once on that rolling text on the bottom of the screen, but that was all. Other news channels covered the accident as I would expect. Today there seams to be nothing but the war on CNN. Watching for instance CBC news there are other stuff going on in the world too.
