Talk:CNN/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RfC on Controversies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1) Should the CNN article contain a section for Controversies? And if so, 2) should it be based on the sections already existing on the CNN controversies page as I have proposed, or something else? SmolBrane (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, instead the controversies that are due should be worked into the prose of the most fitting section, most likely the history section. The CNN controversies article should be linked in the see also section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)
  • ScottishFinnishRadish, working the prose into existing content is normally fine when there is very little controversy, but there's enough that we have a whole sub-article. That means other rules come into play. We should follow WP:Summary style, which requires us to leave a section, short summary, and a main link. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following that guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Having followed this discussion, and reviewing WP:Summary style, I'm convinced.
• Yes, we should have a short summary that links to the controversy article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Consistency is a virtue; there is no reason to treat CNN differently from how we treat basically every other major media outlet in the United States. Burying the material within the other sections and at the bottom of the page isn't a genuine compromise either. However, given that there is an entire article dedicated to the topic, it makes sense for the section to be brief and have a hatnote linking to the main article. Mlb96 (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes Other Wikipedia entries for media organizations have sections about controversies which link to main controversy pages for that organization. It is cleaner to have a separate section for controversies rather than interrupting a general recounting of CNN's history by delving into specific controversies during that recounting. Cynistrategus (talk) 03:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• No, (Summoned by bot) I've read prior discussions above, and no argument is really made except "other news source articles have one". Some of the examples given, including The Daily Telegraph, DON'T HAVE a separate dedicated list aricle, so the comparison is invalid, while others, have sections on major, historic, specific issues, not a 'generic' controversies section. Some other big news orgs, such as BBC News. don't have any 'generic' controversies section either. So, apart from being a poor argument, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, turns out to be only partly true at best. Better arguments would need to be made about WHY/HOW such a section would improve THIS article to persuade me. Of course the 'list' article should be linked to fairly prominently, but that does not appear to be disputed. Pincrete (talk) 09:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Pincrete, working the prose into existing content is normally fine when there is very little controversy, but there's enough that we have a whole sub-article. That means other rules come into play. We should follow WP:Summary style, which requires us to leave a section, short summary, and a main link. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following that guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the right argument. WP:Summary style is the right guideline, and it requires we leave a section, short summary, and a main link. The easiest way to do that is to use the lead from the sub-article. If we don't do that, then CNN controversies is a forbidden WP:POV fork. -- Valjean (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
• No The trolls come and try to whup this up every few months, then the dust settles. The standalone article is fine. ValarianB (talk) 12:53, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • ValarianB, you're missing the point. The standalone article is indeed fine. What's questioned is whether we should follow WP:Summary style and have a short section here. See my comments immediately above. We should follow the guideline. By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - Of course there should be. When you fork off content you leave a section heading with an appropriate summary which links to the new article with a main template or comparable template. This is non-controversial and is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. In theory, incorporating the (DUE) criticism into the article would have been fine too, and if someone has done it in their userspace I would reconsider my vote. However, the way the article is structured now makes it very hard to incorporate the criticism. Adding a short section with a summary is much easier and does not contradict any policies or guidelines, as far as I can see. Alaexis_¿question? 11:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• No per my arguments above; it's not a useful way to organize an article and leads to a section that serves to accumulate random criticisms stripped of context. The argument that CNN controversies serves to justify a subsection here seems to me to rather circular, ie. it's presuming that that article is not a POV fork, which only makes sense as an assumption if you take it as a given that this article (and, given that virtually none of the arguments given are specific to CNN, by extension all articles on subjects high-profile enough to support them) should by definition have criticism section, which is obviously not supported policy or practice. Likewise, the argument that such sections have accumulated elsewhere isn't convincing given that they more or less show the same problems there (and are certainly not universal, so a rationale specific to CNN is needed to introduce one here - stronger than just "we have enough material that we could organize things that way if we can reach a consensus to do so", given that there is clearly not a broad consensus supporting criticism sections as a default way to organize things anywhere.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Aquillion, if the sub-article is an improper POV fork, the solution is to restore that content here and merge it into proper locations throughout this article as a failure to include criticisms here would be a huge NPOV violation. When that is done, it should be AfDed. Do you want to deal with that merger and then the AfD?

OTOH, if it isn't an improper POV fork, summary style says we should have a (short) section here (and that section should not accept additions as the one adding content should do it at the sub-article). BTW, ScottishFinnishRadish has just changed their mind and recommends we follow summary style. -- Valjean (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, your argument starts from the assumption of "we must have a controversy section" (ie. "if we can't have it on a POV fork then we need to have it here.") Obviously that's an absurd assertion given that controversy sections are, themselves, deeply controversial as a way to organize articles; I'm certainly not seeing anything in WP:SUMMARY supporting their use - in fact, it specifically warns that However, certain types of content can be difficult to write neutrally in independent articles, such as "Criticism of..." articles (see WP:CSECTION), and if the subject is controversial it may also increase editors' maintenance burden. Obviously that applies here and makes this an inappropriate subject to try and devote a section-and-sub-article to. Also, I note that you have now responded to nearly every person arguing "no" - please stop WP:BLUDGEONING this discussion, especially with circular arguments like these. --Aquillion (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand my position. I do not favor controversy sections at all. I'd rather we avoid them, but once they are created, they often exist because policy does not forbid them and sometimes that's the easiest way to deal with lots of such content. It can't always be integrated in an easy way. Maybe it's laziness that created the situation in the first place, and I don't know in this case. My reliance on the rule at Summary style is that it applies to any and all subjects that get split out into sub-articles, and that also includes controversies. That's where I'm coming from. If that content can be merged back into this article in the appropriate places, that would be best. The current situation is untenable as it violates Summary style. Something needs to be done. That's all. -- Valjean (talk) 18:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the policy citations here. If the article fails to comply with Summary Style, it appears it will require a Neutrality tag, probably either “POV” or “Move portions from” and probably a downgrade to C-Class based on the criteria at Content assessment. Thoughts? SmolBrane (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. Right now it is not compliant with the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Status right now is 6 yes and 3 no. Unless we see some substantial policy-based reasons to ignore Summary style, we need a close in favor of following Summary style.
• Note that the advice to not have controversy and criticism sections is from an essay. It's still good advice, but essays do not trump PAG. Such a section doesn't have to be titled "controversy" or "criticism", although it should describe the contents properly, and we often use such sections, with such titles, where controversy and criticism is a large topic area. When such a topic justifies its own sub-article, that is evidence it's an important enough subject for a section in the main article, per Summary style.
• By doing so, the trolls will have no justified reason to make waves. Right now they have a justified reason because we are not following the guideline. -- Valjean (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Yes - as nominator. SmolBrane (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

SmolBrane, would you mind making your "yes" !vote in the format used above? That way it's noticeable. Your argument in favor of Summary style would be a good reason for !voting "yes". -- Valjean (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• Yes As per Mlb96.Rja13ww33 (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Yes This is fairly standard for cable news subjects. A separate article for controversies exists and should be summarized briefly on this main article.LM2000 (talk) 11:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Non partisan?

No one in their right mind thinks CNN is "non-partisan ". That sentence needs to be removed. 76.91.127.113 (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry your comment got deleted without explanation. I believe you are talking about the sentence in the lead. I reviewed the five sources; most of this summary comes from the Slate article, and a bit from the Vox article. Neither of these articles frame CNN's efforts to be "non-partisan" in the same type of favorable way that the article currently does. This will be tricky to copyedit but I appreciate the objection. Also, a brief review of the archive suggests this issue has been brought up MANY times. SmolBrane (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, the sentence in the lead says "The network is known for ... its efforts to be nonpartisan, which have led to accusations of false balance" which reflects the sources' criticism of attempts to include right-wing perspectives. Where does the article frame this in a positive light? –dlthewave ☎ 04:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

It's basically a good faith issue(not in terms of wiki policy)—the current phrasing in the lead suggests that CNN is acting in good faith with their false balance(“efforts to be nonpartisan”), as opposed to what Slate(for instance) actually said:

”The problem with Jeffrey Lord wasn’t that he was awful. It was that CNN didn’t care he was awful—or, rather, that CNN said, Our political programming will not be complete until we find an analyst who is really, really awful, and then put him on air constantly in the name of “balance.”This impulse is the most insidious form of, yes, fake news: cable networks’ habit of hiring superficially articulate frauds and fakers to interpret the news, in the process falsely equating their bad opinions with informed people’s good ones and creating a space where nothing means anything and fame is equated with moral standing.”

So ultimately I feel it comes down to whether CNN is acting in a nonpartisan way, incidentally producing false balance, or using “nonpartisan” as cover for strawmanning their opponents. Anyway like I said this is nuanced and will be difficult to correct in the lead, but the repeated objections about this word(nonpartisan/efforts to be) should get some consideration from editors. So there is a false balance issue, but whether this reflects a genuine “effort to be nonpartisan” is not so clear. The current phrasing suggests a more incidental outcome rather than a causal one like the source suggests. Perhaps we could say "alleged efforts to be nonpartisan" or something similar. SmolBrane (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reviewed the sources after writing my last comment which generated a better understanding of the issue for me. Bad faith is generally not extended to CNN except for Zucker's comments on politics being a sport. Whether CNN tried to find good pundits is clouded with the general absurdity of the Trump presidency so it's not even possible to assess whether those pundits were strawmen or not(based on my interpretation of these sources). So I'm not too thrilled with the current phrasing; I think it glosses over the sports-like approach endorsed by the CNN president(rather than an explicitly good-faith approach) but I won't be making an edit right now. SmolBrane (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookebetancourt99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2022

Why don't you have CNN listed as a liberal news outlet as you call Fox News Conservative!

Wikipedia describes conservative Fox News as "an American multinational conservative cable news television channel", which is fair enough inasmuch as it's certainly an accurate description of Fox News.

However, Wikipedia describes liberal CNN as merely “a multinational news-based pay television channel headquartered in Atlanta, United States", with no reference to its political orientation describes liberal MSNBC simply as "an American news-based pay television cable channel based in New York City", again with no reference to its political orientation. 50.231.60.202 (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Make use of the "search archives" button at the top. This has been covered before. Zaathras (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rfc

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to gather reliable sources such that claims can be properly discussed. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 07:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

---

How should CNN's potential political bias/positioning be covered?

1. Do nothing. Article is fine as-is.
2. Audience. We should acknowledge CNN's audience as mostly democrats, or that CNN appeals to a leftist audience.
3. Bias. We should describe CNN as having a left-leaning or liberal bias.
4. Other. Please comment below. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 04:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Survey

1. Yield not one inch to those who seek to demonize CNN as "liberal" because it and its audience don't go along with the firehose of falsehood, the alternative facts, the gaslighting, the projection, the Big Lie and all the rest of the torrent of bullshit of post-truth politics that is the classic, textbook modus operandi of fascist movements. There, I said it. Have a nice day. soibangla (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Per Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. The hidden note that the proposer tried to remove (twice) is in place to reflect the consensus reached on this article, and to deter drive-bys. Further, a discussion on whether CNN is liberal or left or whatever isn't the issue. Most mainstream, reliable media is liberal or left-leaning. As other editors have pointed out over the years, there's no need to state the immediately obvious in the lede. ValarianB (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1. I suppose if folks are insistent on adding the word "left" to the article; it could say that CNN is to the left of the Aryan Nations. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Oppose #2 and #3 Support withdrawing RFC as WP:NOTNEUTRAL and unlikely to start a useful discussion. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 14:12, 10 May 2022 (UTC) —

Comment: I happen to think CNN is pretty left wing, but this is not the best RFC I've ever seen. You need a concrete proposal as far as text goes (with backing RS). Furthermore, the where of this (i.e. at what point in the article) is important because (as others have pointed out) we've already had a RFC/discussion on that aspect of this. We cannot relitigate this stuff constantly.Rja13ww33 (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. For at least that reason I'd go with option 1. Another reason is the catalogue below of prior failed attempts to slap a left/liberal label on this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

• #1 for now; none of the proposed changes here would be an improvement. At the very least I don't think this RFC has WP:RFCBEFORE satisfied - if we're going to discuss how to characterize CNN we need to spend more time going over sources. I'd also be opposed to characterizing it based on its viewers unless the sources very clearly talk about CNN specifically and exclusively in that context - my problem with relying on raw numbers or passing mentions (beside the WP:OR issue) is that conservative viewers in the US overwhelmingly watch a single network, so any other major network is going to, by definition, have a less-conservative audience. If we want to treat that as significant in this article we need sources specifically highlighting it as relevant to CNN itself, rather than general sources about US media divides or direct polling. --Aquillion (talk) 19:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
• #4Provide sources that support the change so the community can discuss sources and not emotions.Slywriter (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

How about Option 5, abort this dumpster-fire? Please read WP:RFCNEUTRAL, as this rfc is basically -

• "Do you want to pick the option to leave this article alone, or pick one of the 3 reasons why liberals suck?"

Zaathras (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

You misread my question. It obviously is not about why liberals suck. It is about whether the article should be changed to include content that other users have been suggesting. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 04:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I did not misread a think, thanks. You crafted a poorly-worded RfC to cater to the demands of single-purpose accounts and IP users. Take a look back through the archives, most "I demand liberal be added to the opening line!" pleas are from an IP or a now-blocked or a one-and-done new user. Zaathras (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you think the RfC is poorly-worded, please suggest improvements other than to just close it, as I believe it to be valuable. The RfC was not opened to cater to the demands of SPA and IP users. If you think so, I would believe that you are not assuming good faith. If you believe that a discussion is not needed and not valuable, you can bring valid reasons up here. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 12:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, I am not a SPA I do not have a personal agenda. Using COMMONSENSE to me I think CNN is left-leaning. Therefore I believe there should be a discussion about whether this is true among RS. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 12:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

"a left-leaning or liberal bias" I don't get. What do liberals and other so-called centrists have to do with left-wing politics (socialists, anarchists, and Greens)? The day that corporate news like CNN will promote socialism is the day that hell will freeze. Dimadick (talk) 05:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I am not an expert in US politics, so feel free to correct me if I am wrong. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 05:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@ValarianB: When I tried to remove the comment I had thought that the consensus in 2018 was to not to be made to the article at [that] time. Which meant to me that this matter can always be discussed later. I understand that it is there to prevent people from just adding it to the article without discussing it, but you should see that my second edit was not, in fact, to remove the comment as a whole but to reflect the lack of consensus. I think we should also focus on real arguments as for why CNN is not liberal, instead of making claims of editors. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 13:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Did you perhaps notice administrator Drmies' addendum to the section you cite? "Let's note also that one of the contributors here, Mr. Daniel Plainview, is just another sock of Hidden Tempo, blocked for right-wing POV pushing, disruption, edit warring, socking, and irritating." The hidden note is in place to help deal with the constant stream of abuse. ValarianB (talk) 13:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:CNN History of "Liberal", "Left" proposals

Discussion	User	Status, or last edit to talk page
link	Bogoio	13 Nov 2020 (only edit)
link	cstiker05	9 Jan 2021
link	2601:18D:8D80:9B90:EDFF:3F63:A9D2:AD8C	18 Jan 2021
link	2601:18F:4101:4830:55AF:FC89:E9EF:1B8	28 Feb 2021
link	The Unique One v2.0	27 June 2021
link	TomReagan90	indefinitely banned
link	CB30303	6 July 2021 (only edit)
link	Curvity	14 Sept 2021
link	WhowinsIwins	19 Feb 2022
link	OrangeRye	4 May 2022

For those that are interested, roughly the last 10 Talk:CNN discussions raised about adding "left", "liberal" or similar to the lede. This does not count the numerous one-off aggressive and/or trolling requests such as this that were simply reverted as unproductive. As I expanded on above, the issue isn't whether or not CNN leans left (it does). The issue is the relevance of mentioning such a plain fact. ValarianB (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is CNN liberal?

I think it is. As suggested, I brought this to the talk page even though I don't think this will go anywhere, but I also don't particularly feel like getting banned for spam. As for this being discussed many times, I don't think that matters. The nature of democracy and open forums like wikipedia is to continue discussing topics until the answer is definite, and I don't feel this topic is definitively decided. In general American culture, where CNN is from, CNN is seen as liberal, not extremist or far left, but definitely left, at least when it comes to politics. I have never met someone in my life who feels differently. You can find many reliable sources like the Pew Research Center that back this up and show that liberals prefer CNN while conservatives do not. As for CNN saying they are not biased or are trying to be non-bipartisan, I feel this claim holds no weight. By that logic, the CCP or Sputnik should also be considered unbiased as they claim to say nothing but the facts. Let's talk about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeRye (talk • contribs) 23:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The question isn't whether CNN leans progressive or left, as most media does. The question is, is it worthwhile to mention in the lead. It has been argued that it is about as worthwhile as writing "George Walker Bush (born July 6, 1946) is a Caucasian American politician who served as the 43rd president of the United States" in the opener of George W. Bush. Zaathras (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel it is important to agknowledge bias for news sources. Someone from another country may not know the lean of the various news channels, so wouldn't it be helpful for them? Also, Fox News is called conservative in its lead paragraph, so I don't see the difference. OrangeRye (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Reality has a well-known liberal bias. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras this comment was not necessary. reality is neutral. there is no such thing that is morally correct as a fact. liberals and conservatives debate about opinions and not facts. it is true that CNN tends to emphasize the liberal agenda more than the conservative agenda Matteow101 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

if you wish to to trawl through months-old discussions looking for things to be upset about, that's your deal. Kindly leave me out of it, i.e. do not use the ping feature and my name again unless it is a pertinent and recent discussion. Zaathras (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Would someone from another country have the same understanding of "liberal" and "conservative"? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The challenge would be to find sources for the assertion that aren't merely reflecting their own agenda. The sourcing in the Fox News lead seems itself suspect, but do you have any sources to suggest here regarding CNN? 67.180.143.89 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Zaathras, nothing can be discussed to death. I see no objection to a network or newspaper or whatever being described as "conservative" or "liberal", especially when reliable sources agree on the subject. For instance, there is a whole lot of information in the lead of The Guardian and Fox News. What is your objection to "liberal"? Moonraker (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2022

This article is missing a section about the CNN logo. I wanted to learn about the logo, and found nothing. The other news organizations, such as CBS and ABC have said section. 2600:100C:B010:7C35:3444:840A:98BC:7A24 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, IP! I tried to Google 'CNN logo history' and nothing much came up. Possibly there are logo sections in articles about other media organizations because they're so much older and were formed in a time when logos were much more complex than they are now, so they actually have a history to discuss of their evolution over time. CNN's logo has barely changed since the organization was formed. Valereee (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Political Alignment

I’ve noticed other wiki articles describe certain cable news networks as “conservative” in their opening paragraph. Those articles have a “political alignment” section in them as well. Given CNN’s hyper-partisan reporting would it not be fair and accurate to describe CNN as a “liberal” news network? If someone were to wiki CNN they wouldn’t know the networks left leaning views until they clicked the controversies section and exited the CNN main page. I think this could confuse anyone wanting to do just a quick search on the network. WhowinsIwins (talk) 07:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Has been discussed to death. Go up to the archive search box at the top of this page and enter in "liberal" for a keyword to see past results. Zaathras (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree 66.168.74.159 (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication and Culture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brookebetancourt99 (article contribs).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2022

Two executives listed in the CNN Sidebar no longer work for the company: Brad Ferrer and Andrew Morse. The page in general really needs an update.

Beme is shutdown. CNN Films is nearly closed. The CNN+ information is incomplete. And on and on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1001:7810:5c13:5468:e5a4:db95 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I did not write the above, but the user did not sign their edit request.  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

Please remove "30303" from the headquarters address in the info box. It is in the incorrect address format, and zip codes are not included for other organization addresses. It should simply read:

1 CNN Center Drive Atlanta, GA 2600:6C51:7C7F:8D66:AC20:AEFA:7237:CEA1 (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done casualdejekyll 19:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Does it really make sense to have "CNN has also been accused of having had a liberal bias during the Trump administration"?

Not for nothing but anyone can accuse anyone of anything, there's only one citation, and one there is is only a secondary source to the statement being made. At the very least we should be citing one of these accusations instead of citing coverage about the accusations. 76.243.104.169 (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have added multiple media bias ratings and references. Wlwl0623 (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wlwl0623, what makes you think Ad Fontes Media is a reliable source? WP:RSP clearly states "Ad Fontes Media and their Media Bias Chart should not be used in article space in reference to sources' political leaning or reliability." I have reverted your edit. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar why did you not only remove this reference then? why revert the whole change? Wlwl0623 (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have removed reference deemed unreliable by Wiki community. Please respond here first if you disagree, to avoid an edit war.

Respectfully, cheers. Wlwl0623 (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wlwl0623, because the other sources aren't reliable either. Wikipedia's consensus's on All Sides (WP:ALLSIDES) states "reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis." You shouldn't look for sources that support a certain narrative and then just cite them without an analysis. Stop adding sources that have not been deemed reliable, as you did here when you added a Biasly citation, and the NYT source has nothing to do with bias in CNN. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar thank you for your input. I will modify the reference considering your suggestion. meanwhile feel free to modify as you see fit. Simply reverting shouldn't be the way to go. looking for resources to support a narrative is by definition what references are used for so I don't agree with you on that. Wlwl0623 (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is about the inclusion of unreliable sources. I haven't even gone into WP:ONUS or WP:UNDUE yet. — Nythar (💬-🍀) 07:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Nythar please refer to Fox and MSNBC page and I'd be happy to discuss with you why bias information shouldn't be included or why it's not neutral to point out that certain analysis shows its bias. I'd also be happy to work with you to add opposing analysis if any. Wlwl0623 (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't like the various sites that exist to highlight media bias. They've pretty much all come under scrutiny for their methodologies and tend to reduce something complicated, which varies over time and even from hour to hour, into a single metric. Some are better than others, but I'm yet to see there be consensus to include them anywhere. The other reason I've reverted are the section headings. The claim about "false balance" isn't necessarily (or even primarily) about liberal bias, and we shouldn't have a subsection without citations. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

CNN bias

14 days without a source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
with EVERY article concerning news outlets that are not left leaning, Wikipedia adds verbiage concerning support of Republicans, anti republican statements, and anti right verbiage. Every article on Left leaning news outlets contain no such biased language. Either remove any and all politically biased statements, or include the same criticism in you articles concerning leftist news outlets. Wikipedia is clearly a left leaning site, that doesn't bother to hide its bias. 50.250.214.1 (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2023 (UTC) Please provide reliable sources characterizing CNN as slanted left so we can have a look. soibangla (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC) @Soibangla all you need to do is watch CNN. Their anti-Conservitive, anti-Right, anti-Republican people are right in your face. They lie, & it shows in their numbers. 24.45.152.12 (talk) 06:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC) According to Ad Fontes media and AllSides, CNN is generally perceived to have a slight to moderate left-leaning bias. The hard part is figuring out how to include this information without angering too many people. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC) No, we cannot include this information because WP:ALLSIDES and WP:ADFONTES aren't sufficiently reliable sources for this information. Andre🚐 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC) See WP:FALSEBALANCE. We will be adding no such thing to this article. Zaathras (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2023 (UTC) @50.250.214.1 Absolutely true. CNN is extremely biased against Republicans. 24.45.152.12 (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2023

Change "CNN claims to be 'The Most Trusted Name in News', but its efforts to be nonpartisan have led to accusations of false balance" to "CNN's attempts to be nonpartisan have led to accusations of false balance." As written, the sentence feels unnecessarily vindictive. 97.87.135.143 (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 23:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media Rates the CNN Trump Town Hall

Ad Fontes Media Rates the CNN Trump Town Hall. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems like nice content, but not RS. I'm watching this Andre🚐 21:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Name?

Initially of course CNN stood for Cable News Network. Is the company still Cable News Network or is the company name now CNN in the same way that International Business Machines became IBM? Cross Reference (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Kaitlin Collins use of the word eminent when she should have use imminent.

Wrong use of word. The Source, Kaitlin Collins at 9.02 on the 31st July. 173.79.37.241 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Is this a joke? This is an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

It has been variously described as liberal,[10] left-wing[18] and far-left.[35] 172.58.147.255 (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources?$chnauzer 04:23, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Cnn should be recognized as a biased network.

2601:881:8400:5A90:654E:A0B0:C1BC:43AA (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Technically, that is covered under Controversies and criticisms. If I'm to assume you're looking for a mention in the lead, this has been discussed at-length. See section Bias upon starter sentence above as well as the archives.  BelowTheSun  (T•C) 14:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

CNN+ memory-holed

This thing mentions CNN+, a former Spanish news channel defunct for a decade. But the huge failure that was the CNN+ streaming platform is not even mentioned. 128.107.241.166 (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Bias upon starter sentence.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Fox News mentions it's conservativeness in the first sentence, and when searching it up "American conservative news" or something. Nothing is mentioned about CNN being liberal. I feel there is bias here. Does anyone think it should be changed. IEditPolitics (talk) 17:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussed to death. Read through the archives, the link can be found at the top of this page. Zaathras (talk) 21:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Best to avoid this battle. The left refuse these labels on any radical leftist media. It's the same for every leftist organization. You won't find one label. However if one leans right, it's mentioned within the first few words. This is the leftist bias of Wikipedia. 2601:18C:9002:3EC0:7CE0:7593:FF8C:C83F (talk) 06:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@IEditPolitics Beyond the comment of the troll (IP ending with C83F)... I agree with you that there is a lack of isonomy on Wikipedia.

Searching Google Scholar reveals reliable academic sources concerning the network's liberal bias:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13428-010-0026-z 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is true. Just look at how often the label “far-right” is used versus the scarcity of the label “far-left” by the mainstream media. 2600:1017:B8C1:FE0:E953:2B25:60B1:3555 (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.