CNN is not fake news

To address Pro's first sentence: During a debate, if a specific term or word is vital to the debate, a definition is always recommended or necessary, no matter what you presume. CNN seeks to discredits TrumpPro further states that I must provide evidence to show CNN seeks to discredit Trump. While I don't have a PR statement from CNN claiming they aim to discredit Trump (Just like a drug dealer wouldn't tell a police officer they sell drugs), I have the next best thing. Statistics. -Just looking at part of a single day, a team of researchers records how much CNN looks at the presidency. . https://www.newsbusters.org...The result was spending 12 hours and 19 minutes over the presidency, while only spending 1 hour and 8 minutes on other news. This is clearly near obsession of the President. Yes, he is our President, but there is only 1 hour and 8 minutes of news not relating to him? -We can take this a step further with more studies. From the Washington Times, a study was taken to see how much news outlets spent talking negatively/positively about Trump. (They also talk about the study in my previous link). https://www.washingtontimes.com...The result was that 93% of Trump-related news negative, while only 7% positive. "And CNN? The Harvard researchers found CNN"s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, 7 percent positive. "Trump"s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity," wrote the authors of the Harvard study. "The article continues, saying,"“Looking just at CNN’s own on-air talent, the results were even more tilted, with 69 appearances by anti-Trump analysts, vs. just two for pro-Trump analysts,” MRC wrote. "-But we can take this yet another step further, by comparing it to previous presidents. The article also states,"When the Chosen One, Barack Obama, completed his first 100 days, a similar study found that coverage was 59 percent positive, 41 percent negative. "-So, Obama has a 56% - 41% positive/negative news ratio, while Trump has a 7% - 93% positive/negative news ratio. If that doesn't scream bias and hate, I don't know what does. Furthermore, CNN has had appearances by 69 anti-Trump analysts vs 2 pro-Trump analysts. This shows bias and hate. CNN has been trying to discredit Trump since he announced his running for presidency, and this koi fish situation is no different. Fact vs FakePro Claims:"In fact, Trump was with Abe, he was feeding fish and he indeed emptied a box of food into a koi pond. If these are facts, it's impossible for it to be fake news. Facts and fake news are mutually exclusive. "He also claims,"Aside from a few adjectives, this is all objective and factual. .. so, again, it doesn't meet the standard of fake news. "-In this quote, Pro contradicts his prior statement. Beforehand he claimed, "Fake news is defined as false or misleading information published with the intent to deliver misinformation. "According to this definition of fake news, publishing misleading information with the intent to mislead is fake news. -Now you claim that if it has facts, it is not fake news. No. If these facts are made and displayed to mislead viewers, it is fake news. (Third time the definition has changed, this is why you define things in the beginning)Twitter and CNN. comPro Claims:"You mention 95% of the people didn't read the full article. Please provide evidence. If i made the claim '95% of readers actually read the article' you'd ask me to provide evidence. Again, please stick to the facts. "-While admittedly I can't determine the exact number, I can give a rough estimate. According to CNN, CNN. com had around 122 million visitors this January. . http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com...-They currently have about 39.5 Million Twitter followers. (Not going to link their twitter, just check if you don't believe me)-So if we take the 122 million vistors in January, and divide it by 31, the number of days in January, we get a rough total of about 3.9 million people on the site each day. If we divide the 39.5 million followers by 3.9 million, we get 10.13% of followers going on CNN, showing that 89.87% of followers didn't go on CNN. -This is obviously a very rough estimate (Not determining how many followers saw the post, how many people went on CNN. com but not on the article, not the same month, not everyone is a follower, etc. ), but it serves roughly the same purpose. A majority of CNN twitter subscribers do not go on CNN. com, showing that this tweet can and will mislead those people. Getty Images VideoWhile Pro proves a point about how the photo journalist wouldn't know that Trump and Abe would dump the food and purposely zoom in on Trump, this doesn't mean anything. Let's ask about why CNN used this video. There are obviously others in existence which show both Trump and Abe dumping the food (as i've shown you), so why did CNN use the video of only Trump dumping the food? Why did they use this zoomed-in and shakey video as opposed to a clear stable one? They used this one instead of a different one to discredit Trump. To rebut the answers you gave to my questions:- "Why did they crop out Shinzo Abe dumping out food? "Already adressed, see "Getty Images Video", but they also could have edited the video themselves. - "Why not include the full video, and avoid all of this? "Why would he zoom in on Trump like that? The camera shot is so insanely awkward and is obviously trying to keep Abe out of the picture. This most likely means the video has been edited to keep Abe out of the shot. - "Why even make news of this? "How is this a question for another debate? The creation of the tweet, video, and news story is a vital part of this debate. Question still stands, why would they make news about Trump feeding fish? - "Why caption/label it the way they did? "If the caption is meant to mislead, it is fake news. - "Even though they included the sentence about Abe "appearing" to dump out food, the overall purpose was still to mislead readers. "Intent already adressed, see "CNN seeks to discredit Trump"Pleasure debating with you.