Is Calling CNN 'Fake News' an assault on Freedom of the Press?

[Daelak]

CNN has even been called out by the NYT and WAPO since they have used their sources for their own stories. But... when its found out that their facts are incorrect and they have go and fix what was written. CNN never retracts. I mean, you really pick CNN? They are the worst at pushing incorrect facts and never correcting.

The Cohen story is the first to come to mind, when the lawyer who also works for CNN was used as their own 'anonymous source'. fucking disgrace.

Show me the article. Show me the fucking evidence of widespread, constant bombardment CNN disseminates to the unsuspecting public that pushes a liberal-commie partisan agenda.

[Beazy]

CNN, NYT, NPR, BBC, Al-Jazeera, et al. are the pinnacle of what constitutes a free press and the embodiment of the public's right to transparency in government.

You're so funny, I cant wait for your Netflix comedy special.

[Daelak]

I didn’t call them fake news. And they are often openly antagonistic and partisan. Feel free to YouTube any popular Acosta video.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/02/14/pol...www.cnn.com%2F

Now are you going to respond to me calling out your bulkshit on a party switch and provide any evidence, or did you run away for good. It’s been 24 hours. You’re not as smart as you think you are.

What is partisan about this analysis? It's a political analysis by journalists. Would it make you feel better if they did a one sentence analysis of the GOP primary showing Trump's face and saying he has a chance to get it?

Again, show me the partisanship, show me the antagonization. Where is it in this article? It's all facts and analysis via the potential voter affinity of each candidate.

- - - Updated - - -

You're so funny, I cant wait for your Netflix comedy special.

Oh right, they are all in a global super secret Killary-Obama-Soros cabal designed to make us believe in the liberals.

[Shaderas]

I never put someone on ignore for disagreeing with me, I only put those on ignore who only throw out insults. This is the only media outlet that I actually use the ignore feature because are allowed to say what ever they want. my Reply box fills up fast and I rather only communicate with people who don't write constructively.

I usually only ignore the people that are crazy... the ones so far off the deep end that they aren't worth talking to (Elba as an example). Also, I think I have one that would feign civility in discussions, but use insults (even if they were veiled) during debates here.

[Beazy]

Oh right, they are all in a global super secret Killary-Obama-Soros cabal designed to make us believe in the liberals.

Is that what you tell yourself when you say stupid shit?

[Xirrohon]

Show me the article. Show me the fucking evidence of widespread, constant bombardment CNN disseminates to the unsuspecting public that pushes a liberal-commie partisan agenda.

Look it up your GD self. It was a huge issue a couple months ago.

And... your little trick to try and get me to watch/read CNN isnt going to work. I dont feel like watching a War Mongering, Anti American, Anti White Male News Channel. But feel free to watch if thats what you enjoy. Just dont forget what you are watching.

[Daelak]

Is that what you tell yourself when you say stupid shit?

You're right, show me the "true" journalists that live up to your shiny image of what the press should be. Or maybe I should believe POTUS tweets and speeches at face value? How about his press secretary? Or maybe there shouldn't be a press at all, we just go about our lives with no access or information about the working of the government, that would show those liberal journalists and news outlets who's boss!

[Edge-]

I didn’t call them fake news. And they are often openly antagonistic and partisan. Feel free to YouTube any popular Acosta video.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._midterms.html
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi..._bastards.html

Acosta has asked blunt questions to that could be considered "antagonistic" and "partisan" to Obama as well, the difference was that while the Obama administration did take a hostile position towards the press a few times (and were rightfully criticized by media for it!) they weren't engaged in open, sustained attacks against the media for the better part of 4 years now.

And antagonistic? Should media be best friends with the people they cover? Should we go back to the days of FDR where he had them around his finger? Where they're feeding us the news the White House wants rather than actual news? No, press are frequently and necessarily antagonistic towards topics, people, and organizations they cover, especially institutions of power (corporations, governments etc.) Press aren't there to be PR for the institution of power, so the institution of power is obviously going to do everything they can to get their message out. Press meanwhile, aren't interested in their message but rather the truth, and these two things are frequently not aligned.

Should he just be really nice and accommodating for presidents? Should he not ask hard questions? Should he not push back when he's given non-answers? That's his job dude, to ask hard questions and push back when he gets fed bullshit answers.

[Daelak]

Look it up your GD self. It was a huge issue a couple months ago.

And... your little trick to try and get me to watch/read CNN isnt going to work. I dont feel like watching a War Mongering, Anti American, Anti White Male News Channel. But feel free to watch if thats what you enjoy. Just dont forget what you are watching.

Haha exactly, typical behavior from people who willingly spew bullshit when they themselves cannot prove it. Go back to your hole, adults are talking.

[Eosia]

No. Just a show of stupidity since there is no such thing as "fake news". News, by the very definition of the word is factual. Anything else, like stuff on the Fox News Channel, is just fiction.

[Xirrohon]

Haha exactly, typical behavior from people who willingly spew bullshit when they themselves cannot prove it. Go back to your hole, adults are talking.

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-refuses...-davis-1092985

there you go, Im sure I could find more if I really cared.

[Daelak]

https://www.newsweek.com/cnn-refuses...-davis-1092985

there you go, Im sure I could find more if I really cared.

They have other sources, which is why they didn't retract. And really, that one article is enough to persuade you that they are another cog in a gigantic conspiracy to delude the unsuspecting public into accepting globalist propaganda?

Get the fuck out of here.

[Xirrohon]

They have other sources, which is why they didn't retract. And really, that one article is enough to persuade you that they are another cog in a gigantic conspiracy to delude the unsuspecting public into accepting globalist propaganda?

Get the fuck out of here.

Haha, you feel really fucking stupid dont you? Do you work for CNN or something? Are you Don Lemon? WAPO and NYT both dropped this story because they know Lanny Davis was his own 'anonymous source'. You are knowingly being fool. Like I said, it appeals to what you want to believe, so youre going to try and justify it however you want.

[Daelak]

Haha, you feel really fucking stupid dont you? Do you work for CNN or something? Are you Don Lemon? WAPO and NYT both dropped this story because they know Lanny Davis was his own 'anonymous source'. You are knowingly being fool. Like I said, it appeals to what you want to believe, so youre going to try and justify it however you want.

There's nothing to believe, it's a news report, and they have anonymous sources that the NYT and WAPO didn't have. Are anonymous sources now a part of the globalist takeover of the media too now?

What pro-America pro-male pro-white journalism outfit should I subscribe to see the truth?

[Xirrohon]

There's nothing to believe, it's a news report, and they have anonymous sources that the NYT and WAPO didn't have. Are anonymous sources now a part of the globalist takeover of the media too now?

What pro-America pro-male pro-white journalism outfit should I subscribe to see the truth?

Haha, like said. YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. You are admitting to being a sheep, even though Im showing that youre being deceived. IDC. Do what you want.

[Daelak]

Haha, like said. YOU WANT TO BELIEVE. You are admitting to being a sheep, even though Im showing that youre being deceived. IDC. Do what you want.

There's nothing to believe! It's a news report with primary sourcing that they are protecting. The real question is why does that one article persuade you to go full Alex Jones on the media?

What journalist outfit should I subscribe to in order to hear the Real American™ truth?

- - - Updated - - -

People love to claim that anonymous is a pseudonym for imaginary these days.

Oh that's swell, I am not surprised conspiracists and conservatives are now attacking basic journalism methods.

[Edge-]

Haha, you feel really fucking stupid dont you? Do you work for CNN or something? Are you Don Lemon? WAPO and NYT both dropped this story because they know Lanny Davis was his own 'anonymous source'. You are knowingly being fool. Like I said, it appeals to what you want to believe, so youre going to try and justify it however you want.

Yes, and Davis was apparently their only source. CNN is claiming to have more.

Not every news outlet shares the same sources, nor every journalist within a news outlet. If they have other sources standing by the story, one person backing out isn't enough to retract.

[Xirrohon]

There's nothing to believe! It's a news report with primary sourcing that they are protecting. The real question is why does that one article persuade you to go full Alex Jones on the media?

What journalist outfit should I subscribe to in order to hear the Real American™ truth?

Youre a lost cause my man, not going to waste anymore time with you. Youre like the MSM news equivalent of a militant vegan.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, and Davis was apparently their only source. CNN is claiming to have more.

Not every news outlet shares the same sources, nor every journalist within a news outlet. If they have other sources standing by the story, one person backing out isn't enough to retract.

Yea of course they are.

[Edge-]

Yea of course they are.

And? They say they have sources, they stand by it. This is how reporting works. You're welcome to not believe them, but this is standard practice for journalists.

[Xirrohon]

And? They say they have sources, they stand by it. This is how reporting works. You're welcome to not believe them, but this is standard practice for journalists.

So the fact that Lanny Davis went on CNN and said live on air that he was given this story by an 'anonymous source', which was discovered to be HIM, doesnt bother you? then all of sudden, when it got found out CNN said they had other 'anonymous sources' doesnt make you question it? Well, then youre just as bad as the other one. You want to believe, so go ahead. What I say here isnt going to convince you.