CNN Promising to Be Nicer to GOP

[Dontrike]

That's the very appropriate stance to deal with know-nothings that think acting out tribalism is somewhere between absolutely forced and troubling but necessary. I couldn't have put it better.

I know this might surprise you, but he's downplaying Trump on purpose, and also you don't have to give Nazis and/or fascists air time. All that does is allow them to reach more people with their lies.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Bad actor and confirmed sexual assaulter. The second one is important because it has been weeks and @tehdang still refuses to acknowledge it.

Well, even if he does acknowledge it he's just going to downplay it. Gonna be a mix of "it wasn't a criminal trial", "the jury cleared him of the rape accusation", and "he'll win the appeal". All of the talking points.

[Forogil]

Almost perfect to hear the legitimate blended with the illegitimate by a student here, and her frowning. Yes, the moon landings happened and 9/11 was an act of foreign terrorists and Trump lost 2020 and Barack was born in Hawaii. No, those shouldn't be cited with the same certainty as the true COVID death toll given the issues with reporting deaths with COVID vs from COVID. We have certain estimates and some degree of estimation of the error involved with them, and it's worthwhile to speak about them as their own subject. Not call people concerned about accuracy "COVID deniers" and move on in your ignorance.

True, but that cuts both ways.

Some reported COVID deaths are primarily due to other factors, in some cases COVID was just one of many factors, but on the flipside some COVID deaths were never reported. Globally there are about 7 million reported COVID-deaths, whereas estimates put the true number around 20 million.

For the US the difference is estimated to be about 100k to 200k - as underreported deaths, not overreported ones; https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...aths-estimates (recently it has swung a bit the other way in many countries - including the US; as the vaccines have reduced the death-toll).

The over-reliance on precise, but inaccurate numbers has been a problem from the start of the pandemic, and part of the reason is the 24-hour news cycle where such details are often lost.

[Breccia]

I mean they--

Still no mention of Trump being found liable of sexual battery.

[Endus]

Sensible too.

Also pretty clearly something Licht never actually believed, since he put all his eggs in the "Trump Town Hall" basket, which has all by itself done more harm to CNN's credibility than any of the scandals or poor choices under prior leadership combined.

No kidding. A certain cohort of his critics are really, really mad about basic viewpoint diversity. Sharing things from something other than their viewpoint is tantamount to courting fascism and seeking to promulgate disinformation. The critics could still be right about Licht's ability to help CNN recover viewers and profits, but their mode of criticism is particularly ill-suited to the situation.

Frankly, if you're able to perform good news journalism on fringe viewpoints without resorting to mocking or condescension, you do better work for the viewers. Interrogate the views, and don't confess your inability to stay detached from the news story.

1> Nobody on the "left" has any problem defending their positions on their merits. Licht was straight-up talking out his ass on that point.

2> Nobody's mad about "viewpoint diversity". We're mad that when there's an issue like "transgender people are people and should be respected as such", fascist bigoted dickwads want their "viewpoint" that "transgenders are freak mutants that are trying to convert our children and destroy humanity" to be given equal credence. And all those transphobes deserve is societal condemnation and losing their jobs and friendships for being outspoken bigots. Not a platform to spread their bigotry and abuse. Basic human decency should not be up for political dispute.

The New York Times wisely realized that they could not commit to reporting on transgender issues while also censoring certain viewpoints relating to the issues in their reporting. GLAAD can adopt an advocacy position and pressure to get it heard and get others relegated to the fringes, but that's their role and prerogative. The articles they criticized were reported empathetically and thoroughly. Any orgs that think they were beyond the pale really were confessing to the public that their mission consists of being intolerant towards a fair hearing of the controversy.

There's only one defensible position on transgender issues; "I support transgender people, their rights to be who they are, and their medical needs". That's not "advocacy", that's "acceptance and decency". Let's imagine we were talking about Jewish people for a moment; the "other side" wants to eliminate them from society and deny them basic medical care. If you were talking about Jews, you'd (rightly) be called out for being a Nazi-style anti-semitic bigot trying to commit genocide.

It's true when you do it to the transgender community, too, for the same reasons. Respecting that transgender people exist and deserve respect and support is not advocacy. It's just a lack of open bigotry. If you can't tell the difference between advocacy and acceptance, you've got serious problems.

[Paranoid Android]

Also pretty clearly something Licht never actually believed, since he put all his eggs in the "Trump Town Hall" basket, which has all by itself done more harm to CNN's credibility than any of the scandals or poor choices under prior leadership combined.

Excuse the reply I know this is a reply to someone I have on ignore, but I want to add to your comments.

I don't think Zucker was much better at CNN. In short CNN chased sensational stories and did both sides for ratings. I remember The Daily Show, with Jon Stewart and what he always criticized CNN for and made fun was them doing stupid stories.

Anecdotally I remember CNN covering the Malaysia Flight 370 for what I think was months after the missing. Tragic story but they farmed the heck out of it. Plus Stewart had one bit where I think it was two different CNN crews standing almost side by side reporting on the same issue.

Then the both sides of CNN politics having horrible Conservative hacks as pundits such as Rick Santorum and others. Which I always wonder if they wanted these clowns on for political punditry or thinking this was a way people would tune in to laugh at them.

As you just schooled that poster, you can't report facts as having both sides. CNN doesn't seem to learn that from either wanting to chase ratings or they really that meek that Republicans cry every day about how unfair they start to believe it.

[Breccia]

Still trying to dig their way out of the hole, CNN has a lengthy interview with itself about the nature of the tape and what it means.

Two things I didn't know until I saw it:
One, the tape was made in New Jersey, specifically Bedminster.
Two, Margo Martin is involved. Martin has already made a grand jury appearance.

[tehdang]

Bad actor and confirmed sexual assaulter. The second one is important because it has been weeks and @tehdang still refuses to acknowledge it.

I gather this is another attempt to make every thread about what you wish to talk about? Otherwise, establish relevance.

The issue is that he did give airtime to a very particular bad actor that continued to spread disinformation.

The interviews on the article appear to be before the Trump town hall. It really doesn't have Licht's perspective on how his philosophy interacted with that particular instance.

True, but that cuts both ways.

Some reported COVID deaths are primarily due to other factors, in some cases COVID was just one of many factors, but on the flipside some COVID deaths were never reported. Globally there are about 7 million reported COVID-deaths, whereas estimates put the true number around 20 million.

For the US the difference is estimated to be about 100k to 200k - as underreported deaths, not overreported ones; https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...aths-estimates (recently it has swung a bit the other way in many countries - including the US; as the vaccines have reduced the death-toll).

The over-reliance on precise, but inaccurate numbers has been a problem from the start of the pandemic, and part of the reason is the 24-hour news cycle where such details are often lost.

The media criticism angle has what you said and also two more touchpoints covered in the article. First, that broadcasters participated in shaming and hype on COVID and caused viewers to say "This is not my life. This is not my reality. You guys are just saying this because you need the ratings, you need the clicks. I don’t trust you." Second, that USC students that might consider themselves well-informed would think that we know how many deaths have been caused by COVID just like we know who won the 2020 election and where Obama was born. Journalists have a duty to present the deaths as estimates, dialogue on the ways we can be more certain about some ranges, and give updates when previous thinking was inaccurate (as the CDC has done, and authors of some studies).

From your article, the writer does well to start it with

How many people have died because of the covid-19 pandemic? The answer depends both on the data available, and on how you define “because”. Many people who die while infected with SARS-CoV-2 are never tested for it, and do not enter the official totals. Conversely, some people whose deaths have been attributed to covid-19 had other ailments that might have ended their lives on a similar timeframe anyway. And what about people who died of preventable causes during the pandemic, because hospitals full of covid-19 patients could not treat them? If such cases count, they must be offset by deaths that did not occur but would have in normal times, such as those caused by flu or air pollution.

and then to state and defend the approach that will be taken

Rather than trying to distinguish between types of deaths, The Economist’s approach is to count all of them.

. The reader knows the counts will include people that didn't die from contracting COVID. It includes those who died from preventable diseases but hospitals were packed or they were too scared of also contracting COVID if they went in. Excess mortality will also include increases in suicide from isolation, increases in deaths from diseases that would normally be routinely screened, and those who were failed by strained social services in the pandemic.

In all, it is perfectly legitimate to use the excess mortality metric while admitting to the shortcomings alongside with the advantages. Referring back to the USC student, he or she may read this article and then better state that only certain declarations of COVID deaths may be untrue for being unbelievably low or high, and to ask what's being counted.

[Endus]

The media criticism angle has what you said and also two more touchpoints covered in the article. First, that broadcasters participated in shaming and hype on COVID and caused viewers to say "This is not my life. This is not my reality. You guys are just saying this because you need the ratings, you need the clicks. I don’t trust you." Second, that USC students that might consider themselves well-informed would think that we know how many deaths have been caused by COVID just like we know who won the 2020 election and where Obama was born. Journalists have a duty to present the deaths as estimates, dialogue on the ways we can be more certain about some ranges, and give updates when previous thinking was inaccurate (as the CDC has done, and authors of some studies).

Licht being an anti-vaxxer conspiracy nut is just another checkmark against him, not a mark in his favor.

If you want to stick to truth and facts; masking wasn't necessary until the pandemic reached a certain point, at which point Fauci changed his recommendations accordingly. The vaccines were always safe and effective. Anyone telling you anything else was a lying shithead who was pushing disinformation for some malicious reason. If you were stupid and gullible enough to fall for that disinfo, that's a massive character failure and you should engage in some self-reflection for why you're so easily-manipulated and willing to believe horseshit instead of the truth. This whole angle in the article was anti-vaxxer bullshit, and you're falling for it right here.

Hot tip; if you're struggling with a medical issue and got COVID and COVID weakened you enough or exacerbated that condition and led to your death, you died due to COVID-19. Anyone selling you on anything else is trying to undersell actual fatality figures to portray the pandemic as less of a threat than it actually was.

[Mekh]

Otherwise, establish relevance.

Relevance: your opinion on anything is irrelevant until you acknowledge the leading figure of the GOP is a rapist and you champion their cause anyway and I have no idea why we are even pretending you aren't a piece of shit for refusing to do so.

Also nice just skirting around allout Covid denial there.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The interviews on the article appear to be before the Trump town hall. It really doesn't have Licht's perspective on how his philosophy interacted with that particular instance.

It shows exactly how his "philosophy" interacted with that particular instance. Let's take another look at the section you quoted:

Licht emphasized certain exceptions to this approach. He would not give airtime to bad actors who spread disinformation. His network would host people who like rain as well as people who don’t like rain. But, he said, CNN would not host people who deny that it’s raining when it is.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Yep somewhere in the constitution has to be written about how nice everyone has to be as each person decides. Systematic oppression, slavery, hatred, no no it's really about how nice everyone can pretend to be, even if we can't even be bothered to be decent. CNN real hard hitting journalism.

[tehdang]

Relevance: your opinion on anything is irrelevant until

Let me know if you change your mind on making your questions relevant to the topics.

It shows exactly how his "philosophy" interacted with that particular instance. Let's take another look at the section you quoted:

The leading candidate in a major party primary also falls under "“You cover him like any other candidate." Neglecting to cover the leading candidate violates that, even if it would be defensible under his "deny it's raining when it is." Such ideals are in conflict, and it would be interesting to hear an interview confronting his past statements with that choice for the network.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

The leading candidate in a major party primary also falls under "“You cover him like any other candidate." Neglecting to cover the leading candidate violates that, even if it would be defensible under his "deny it's raining when it is." Such ideals are in conflict, and it would be interesting to hear an interview confronting his past statements with that choice for the network.

No one is saying they shouldn't cover Trump...but they didn't have to give him a platform to continue to peddle his election fraud lies.

[Mekh]

Let me know if you change your mind on making your questions relevant to the topics.

The leading candidate in a major party primary also falls under "“You cover him like any other candidate." Neglecting to cover the leading candidate violates that, even if it would be defensible under his "deny it's raining when it is." Such ideals are in conflict, and it would be interesting to hear an interview confronting his past statements with that choice for the network.

Let me know when you're done following a rapist. Probably looking up to him, because you'd like to try it yourself but lack balls.

[Muzjhath]

The leading candidate in a major party primary also falls under "“You cover him like any other candidate." Neglecting to cover the leading candidate violates that, even if it would be defensible under his "deny it's raining when it is." Such ideals are in conflict, and it would be interesting to hear an interview confronting his past statements with that choice for the network.

And any other candidate should be grilled,.challenged when they lie, and fact-checked on air in real-time!

[tehdang]

No one is saying they shouldn't cover Trump...but they didn't have to give him a platform to continue to peddle his election fraud lies.

Any amount of coverage can be criticized as platforming, since their message is being covered. Any amount of live fact-checking (as Collins did in the town-hall) can be lauded as precisely what needs to be done. If you don't see the overlap and conflict then I can't help you.

Let me know when you're done following a rapist

It must be Saturday and a discussion thread about CNN! Perfect time to scream from the rooftop about rapists again! Well, for some people at least.

And any other candidate should be grilled,.challenged when they lie, and fact-checked on air in real-time!

I mean Collins asked tough questions, kept grilling him on outright lies, and challenged his responses. Maybe you meant to say you didn't like the crowd response and you really wanted Trump to act more defeated and angry?

[Endus]

The leading candidate in a major party primary also falls under "“You cover him like any other candidate." Neglecting to cover the leading candidate violates that, even if it would be defensible under his "deny it's raining when it is." Such ideals are in conflict, and it would be interesting to hear an interview confronting his past statements with that choice for the network.

Yes. Cover him like any other candidate. That means you call him out for his lies, don't let him get away with using your platform to spread misinformation, condemn his bigotries to his face when he expresses them, and cut his mike and end the interview if he's being disrespectful or abusive in any way whatsoever. You use that to explain why that candidate is unfit for office.

That's what didn't happen at CNN.

And still isn't. The Republicans are falling into fascism, and CNN's reporters seem unwilling to speak the F-word out loud because it's a big mean scary word, even though it's literally the truth. They're scared because people's feelings about that truth are volatile. But the responsibility of journalism is to speak truth to power, even when that power will be incensed about it. Especially then. If you won't, you're cowards who support the false reality.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean Collins asked tough questions, kept grilling him on outright lies, and challenged his responses. Maybe you meant to say you didn't like the crowd response and you really wanted Trump to act more defeated and angry?

No really tough questions. Marginally critical, at best.

No "kept grilling" at all; Collins was required to keep things moving and keep bringing in new crowd questions. She pushed back briefly on a handful of points, and Trump repeated the lie, and she had to move on. For dozens more, no pushback was even attempted. A responsible approach would have been to halt the entire process at the first falsehood told and refuse to move forward until the candidate admits they were lying and retracts the statement with an apology to the audience. Refusal should end the town hall early.
Also, you don't stack the crowd full of Trump supporters. At best, take a random sample of people, so there's as many Democrats as Republicans. And letting Democrats use that time to call out very shitty behaviour of Trump's should have been given as much air as anything else.

We wanted a fair and equitable treatment of a candidate who's abusive and unapologetically dishonest. That means taking him to task and not letting his dishonest lies slide. That simply did not occur, and CNN ended up just blindly supporting and boosting Trump, helping him spread lies and misinformation and engage in spectacularly abusive rhetoric, like slandering E. Jean Carroll yet again just days after being found liable for slandering her the same way before.

[Mekh]

It must be Saturday and a discussion thread about CNN! Perfect time to scream from the rooftop about rapists again! Well, for some people at least.

If you're too much of a coward to show your face in threads again where it's more relevant like the Trump thread (he's a rapist!) or the Roe v Wade thread (this enables rapists!) we just have to do it here. And it would cost you zero dollars to say rape is bad, but sucking up to Trump is more important apparently. And yes, I will continue to scream from the rooftops about your rapist leader and your rapist party.

And before you ask, this is on topic, because CNN promised to be nicer to the rapist party and platformed their rapist leader. How do you feel about that btw?

[tehdang]

If you're too much of a coward to show your face ...
we just have to do it here. And it would cost you zero dollars to say

This isn't your private forum to turn a topic into why some other poster needs to speak some rape condemnations into your ears. My responses were to give you opportunity to drop the rape trolling and focus on the thread topic, but now that you insist on continuing it, no more responses are necessary.