Quote:
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
|
you have more credibility than CNN because next to none is better than none right Aunt Peg?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies
Allegations of bias
See also:
Media bias in the United States
CNN has often been the subject of allegations of
party bias.
The New York Times has described its development of a partisan lean during the tenure of Jeff Zucker. [1] In research conducted by the
Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at
Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by CNN of
Republican and
Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of the
presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with
McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and
Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It's not that Democrats, other than
Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator's stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both
Clinton and
Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama."
[2] In a
New York Observer column entitled "Clinton News Network", political journalist
Steve Kornacki criticized CNN's handling of the
November 15, 2007, Democratic presidential debate, calling it biased towards
Hillary Clinton.
[3]
when the Kings of bias the NY Times call you biased ..
BAAHHHAAHHAAAAAA
CNN (Online News)
News Media
AllSides Media Bias Rating:
Left (far left)
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/cnn-media-bias
Dr. Oz election results
