This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Guys, I'm going to remove all of the Fox News references. I know that there is someone here that is obviously a bit fanatical about this. And that's fine. We all have things we feel strongly about. I can respect that. But this is a page about CNN. It really doesn't seem that all of the Fox stuff has a valid reason for being here. I only ask that before anybody goes and reverts these changes, that they please read the sections through and keep in mind that, despite their own personal opinions, this is a page about CNN. It's not a competition. While CNN may at times certainly not be neutral, there is no reason this wiki page can't be a neutral article. ~~Daydreamer302000, January 2007 (UTC)
"The BBC, known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting, differs from CNN International which uses local reporters in many of its news-gathering centers ..."
I'd say quite a few people would dispute that the BBC is "known for its impartiality and unbiased reporting," and this aside has no bearing on the rest of the article, or even the rest of the sentence.
Jwtkac 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Have you ever listened to the BBC World Service? I hate these people who has the BBC has any type of agenda. IT IS AN IMPARTIAL SERVICE.Anybody who has read the BBC Charter relises that that the government stipulates that BBC Reporting should be fair an unbyast. Similarly, the lie scale of production beats CNN too. The BBC has around 350 Correspondents around the world in total, and we haven't even got to their service in the UK yet. I believe the Americans need to watch the BBC more to realist that America's tainted view of the world.
The BBC is so much better. Why do you yhink they are so sucesful today. They are one television company, and they operate so many channels and radio services.
Who destroyed Jeff Greenfield's page??? How can it be restored? --DanyaRomulus 01:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
--CNN Former Staff edit --
the page should be updated to include:
CNN original anchors Bob Cain (anchored from 1980-2001) now retired in Las Vegas, Bill Zimmerman, now living on Long Island, N.Y., and Don Miller (unknown). Also missing is Andrea Arceneaux who anchored in the late 1990s. {User Str8man87} Dave Browde, now at CBS News, who was a CNN original staff member - the correspondent assigned (simultaneously) to the Pentagon and the Supreme Court; Mark Walton, the original White House Correspondent; Bob Berkowitz, now a talk show host, another original staff correspondent, who also covered the White House and Capitol Hill; Scott Barrett, (now unknown) - the correspondent made famous in the Tapes of Wrath asking about the network catering services at the stakeout outside GW University Hospital, after the assassination attempt on then President Reagan; Kirsten Lindquist, (unknown) - an original DC based anchor.
71.241.153.17 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
In one part of Wikipedia's article about the cable/satellite news channel CNN, there is a section about a former CNN program, "Crossfire," which names at least some of the people who have hosted that program. But, I did not see the names of John McLaughlin or Michael Kinsley included in that part of the CNN article. I believe that, within the early history of Crossfire, John McLaughlin very briefly was either a regular host (with Tom Braden) or an occassional fill-in for Pat Buchanan.(Later in the '80's, McLaughlin's PBS program, "McLaughlin Group, premiered). Also, I believe that, eventually, Michael Kinsley became a regular host "on the left" for Crossfire for a period of time. 70.143.53.39 21:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)DN, Dec. 23, 2006
The opening lists CNN as #1 with the qualifier "unique viewers". In pure numbers, they are a distant second to Fox News. Their Bias against conservatives and unwillingness to cover stories concerning Democrats transgressions and scandals (most notably the Hillary Clinton / FBI files scandal in which over 500 FBI files were found in the living quarters of the White House) by the Janet Reno justice Department gave rise to the letters CNN being translated as the "Clinton News Network" by conservative radio. The lax reporting by the network gave rise to Rupert Murdochs Fox News.
Hello,
This is my first submission so please let me know if I'm not doing this correctly:
I believe that in order to be fair and impartial, if you are to include the following statement under the Fox News description "Fox News is seen by some critics and observers as advocating conservative political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting" I think it would be fair and just to include a similar statement on the CNN description that would state that "CNN is seen by some critics and observers as advocating liberal political positions.[3] The channel denies allegations of bias in their news reporting".
Please let me know if you agree!
All the best,
Marcello 15.243.169.70 21:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfournatly a cabal on Wikipedia has forced their views on the Fox page and blocks even discusion on it.Kirin4 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This article should not state the Fox News Channel as Right-Wing in fact, but in allegation.
"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other right-wing media outlets..."
to
"This is a marked contrast to domestic criticism from Fox News Channel and other alleged right-wing media outlets..."
As the discussion states in the Article policies, a neutral point of view is important.
- I agree, it's heavily POV. --IvanKnight69 12:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
When the article at CNN controversies and allegations of bias lists so many criticisms of CNN as being "too lenient on the Bush administration" and pro-war in nature. Italiavivi 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Some liberal observers have claimed that CNN has a conservative bias. For example, media watchdog Media Matters for America has documented several hundred separate instances of what it sees as conservative editorializing during CNN broadcasts [4]." - conservative criticism first. Isarig 23:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
End Indent - The notion of criticism should not be included in the intro of these types of articles. It is non-encyclopedic, non informative, and its only purpose is to criticize. WP is really starting to become a place to air grievences, and is becoming less of an encyclopedia. Arzel 19:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Imagine if the US didn't have CNN the CIA wouldn't have anywere to get there intelligence from. Thats why they were late for World War 2 CNN wasn't around to tell them it had started.
Imagine where the Iraqi insurgents and other extremists would be if they didn't have CNN tho show their propaganda, for example, when they showed video of a US soldier being shot by a sniper, or when they showed US soldiers being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.104.100.178 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
Imagine if the CNN showed the US soldiers shooting people all you'd see is a load of Dead British soldiers. for those in southern US the British are on your side it was a friendly fire observation.
-G
You want to provide some proof of that?
Their slogan is: "The Most Trusted Name In News". Can anyone proof that?
I mean where are the facts about it, where is it written?
--Slimjim1984 18:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC) from Berlin, Germany
Shouldn't there be a section outlining the journalism awards (Peabodys, Emmys, Murrow etc.) that CNN and its team has won? I'll start it, but does anyone have any thoughts? 64.242.28.5 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
This article links to the wrong one. --Jonboy 15:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you add Martin Soong to the said section? He is now back with CNBC Asia. Valerie Morris can also be added as she is now be hosting a new financial literacy programme. --Pinoysurfer 13:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Another obvious add: Dave Browde, now at CBS News, was the original Pentagon and Supreme Court correspondent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.131.150 (talk) 16:29, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Browde is correct, above, as among the missing, you should add Mark Walton, another CNN original staffer, covering the Carter White House, and Bob Berkowtiz, another original DC Bureau correspondent, and later an author of some note. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obscureinformation (talk • contribs) 08:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe Anna Hovind should be added to the "former" list. After a few cursory searches, I can't tell if she's still working for CNN, Turner or who else, so I won't add her for now. Shawn D. (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
"some of the most nail-biting, suspenseful reports in television news history" sounds awfully like POV to me. Will anyone object if I remove it...or has a suggestion for removing the POV? Guinness 23:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The author of this section refers to the "London blitzkrieg." This is incorrect. The "blitzkrieg" was a style of warfare utilizing mechanized military units in what was essentially a strategy dependent on maneuvers over attrition. The author, I assume, was referring to the London "blitz" which was the German bombing campaign meant to devastate British morale & industry. Could someone please change this? Anonymous
In editing the Fox News Channel article in October 2006, a discussion started on determining whether a schedule should be placed on a television channel's page due to guidelines set by WP:NOT. The discussion ended with the editing of the removal of the times/schedule of the network on the network's page, leaving a list of programming without any mention of a schedule. I will concede, the discussion was between a smaller group of Wikipedians, but does anyone agree with this determination or should the schedule be left on a network page? Chris (Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Surely the correct plural of bureau is bureaux? In any case, the note about boldface under the heading Bureaus does not make sense: bureau should be replaced with the correct plural form, whichever that is. Bistromathic 12:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Here are few things that could be added to trivia section. There are more computer games where you see Cnn references. In Both Master of Orion 1 and 2, if you get random event, you will see cutscene where you will get newsflash from GNN: Galactic News Network. Also in X-Com Interceptor you have news from HNN: Hyperspace News Network. Sometimes you can even hear soundclip "This is HNN".
Makeman38 08:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This article is appalling. Phrases like "the most nail-biting, suspenseful reports in television news history" and "resulting in some of the most indelible journalistic images of the late 20th Century... Their impact was widespread and profound" Are highly subjective and add little to nothing to the content of this article. It sounds as impartial as Lynard Skynard commenting on Niel Young. The pro-CNN bias is throughout, and I would suggest limiting it somewhat, as well as adding a note on sone of the brad criticism of CNN, as some of the comments above suggest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.77.254 (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Let's try this again: would someone please add these shows to the "Former Shows" category of this page. These two shows existed prior to 9/11 and never came back in the aftermath:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20010604/ai_n10692633 http://feldmandesigns.com/davestelevisioncnngreenfield.htm
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sep03/chen091203.html
http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,668933,00.html
I even cited some sources for Pete's sake!!!
Thanks so much.
68.158.184.41 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been watching CNN for some 12 years and I really want to know what is the name of the current "apocalyptic" sounding theme song and who did it.
Your text on coverage of the Gulf War refers to Wolf Blitzer as "then White House correspondent." Blitzer was then Pentagon correspondent. Charles Bierbauer was then Senior White House Correspondent. Frank Sesno was also White House Correspondent.
129.252.85.111 19:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Charles Bierbauer Dean College of Mass Communications and
Information Studies
University of South Carolina
The sentence "CNN introduced the idea of 24-hour television news coverage, celebrating its 25th anniversary on June 1, 2005." implies 24-hours news coverage started on June 1 2005. Weren't they were doing it already for a long time ? --Tigga en 00:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I seem to remember reading in General Charles Horner's (CIC of all air component during the Gulf War) biography, "Every Man a Tiger", that CNN lost contact with their reporters on the first night because they foolishly decided to feed their signal through the Baghdad Central Telephone Exchange (used for both military and civilian traffic). Guess what got bombed by F-117s on the first night? Apparently, the coalition commanders used CNN suddenly going off the air as the first confirmation that the planes made it through and hit their targets.
Might be worth including. Kensuke Aida 04:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
You should rectify a glaring omission: Include under criticisms that in 2003, CNN's chief news executive Eason Jordan admitted that for the past decade the network systematically covered up stories of Saddam Hussein's Iraqi atrocities. Reports of murder, torture, and planned assassinations were suppressed in order to maintain CNN's Baghdad presence. [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.192.116 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling we will be discussing the recent removal and my re-insertion of material into the lead, so start the discussion here. Arzel 00:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The online section could use a clean-up and rewrite - currently it's a little random, kind of awkwardly-written and feels not quite NPOV. I will take a crack at it sometime soon if no-one else does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SueG (talk • contribs) 14:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been hearing that CNN's ratings or viewer numbers or something have been going down. Therefor this needs to be updated. 65.27.139.162 21:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't there a topic that relates to the war on terror? And how CNN focuses on the 'bad' things that happen over there and nothing about the good things? Therefore, they promote a bad/false image of Iraq and Afghanistan. I am sure there are plenty of sources to support this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.139.105.188 (talk) 22:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It would be helpful if the article contained a mention of the initial coverage of the Iraq War. Although more objective than some other American media, it was biased compared with PBS and foreign news services. WMD were accepted as fact, the potential insurgency was ignored, France was vilified (although not Canada or Mexico) for not joining the Coalition of the Willing, and reporters were "embedded" with the Coalition Forces. CNN fully accepted the Government's version of the war and let down its viewers. --The Four Deuces 22:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, but I did not realize that I need to quote sources in order to make suggestions. The point of my observation is that it would be helpful if the article contained information about the accuracy and objectivity of CNN, especially when it covered important news items. Accuracy and objectivity are not matters of opinion and in fact are evaluated by scholars and commented upon by peers. I am not a journalist nor scholar, which is why I think this information belongs in the article (and rest assured I do not intend to edit the article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Four Deuces (talk • contribs) 08:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello,
I was reading the CNN article on Wikipedia and on 9/11 it doesn't say anything about how pretty much all the cable stations stopped broadcasting and started playing CNN. Does anybody know who made that call? And why CNN was chosen to be broadcast on every channel? Who makes the call? I wonder if it was just done because the cable companies thought it was the right thing to do or that it was asked to do that by the government or what. This just got my interest if anyone knows that's cool.
-Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.3.97 (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this go in the controverises section. Here are some references: [4] [5] [6] [7]. Bytebear (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Most organizations have an official website, but not every website needs a separate article. This article doesn't give any information that justifies a separate article. I believe the article CNN.com should me merged into CNN. – Ilse@ 10:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The article CNN controversies seems like a WP:POVFORK of CNN. The article CNN controversies should be merged into a "Criticisms" subsection of CNN, or the article CNN controversies should be killed. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose: The CNN article is already 39 kilobytes long which is longer than standard article size. And the article CNN controversies is also very long. These huge info cannot be merged. And the article CNN controversies is well-referenced. So CNN controversies should stay as separate article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Oppose I happen to disagree with the Wikipedia guidelines in this regard - I think the "controversies" article is a logical split, in the interest of maintaining good article size. Korny O'Near (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind. I withdraw my proposal to merge this article. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 02:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)