Talk:CNN/Archive 1

message: Surely the name of this page is wrong, as the acronym is universally used now? LUDRAMAN | T 02:49, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Not that I necessarily doubt the majority of CNN anchors are Democrats--which, I might add, would only reflect the general leanings of TV and newspaper journalists elsewhere --but where did this list come from? We need to cite a source, at the very least, or get rid of it as irrelevant. As it stands, the article looks like a smear designed to paint CNN as biased, with no hard evidence, only innuendo. Wikisux 20:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchors' political affiliations 

message: Why is there no section on the allegations of bias leveled at CNN like there is on the FOX article?
There are many mainstreem books on the subject, extensive internet comment, and it could be an explaination of the continuing ratings demise of CNN
There isn't a lot of right-wing wikiactivism like there is on the left (see FOX News, and pretty much anything to do with GWB). Some good topics would be
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0C16FD3C5F0C728DDDAD0894DB404482 
and 
http://www.nationalreview.com/tks/054944.html
This has been up for a few weeks so I'm adding it. Discuss if you have objections or want to add.
I think we also need to show allegations of Conservative bias on CNN.  There's dozens of examples of this.  I will prepare a section on this in the comming days and post it.  I'd appreciate any contributions anyone wants to add, but there is no shortage of examples of conservative bias on CNN.
:I believe that many of the items on CNN's "bias allegations" list are misplaced, incorrect, or an attempt at attributing individuals' cherry-picked comments to the network's coverage as a whole.  To be completely open before I begin editing this article, I hold that CBS is America's most liberal station, FOX News is its most right-wing station, and CNN to be my preferred outlet for centrist coverage.  I will likely seek to weed out allegations which seem strictly partisan or unsourced in nature.  For starters, allegations with no corroboration save National Review are suspcious, to me, given their self-professedly biased source. Shem 23:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From Talk:FOX News...I agree with the structure Trodel's set up; the CNN page doesn't seem to have any regulars, but would anyone here object to a re-ordering of CNN's sections to follow the FoxNews article's lead? Shem (talk) 06:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will rearrange and see if there are any objections since the talk page doesn't seem to stir up much discussion. If you object feel free to revert and discuss. Trödel|talk 19:42, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about a piece on Bias  Allegations? 

message: Rudi Bakhtiar has been added to the list of CNN personalities (present). Does she now have any regular capacity on the main network? She shouldn't be listed here if she's mainly or exclusively still with Headline News (or, hypothetically, CNN International). Samaritan 15:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudi Bakhtiar 

message: I think the link "Jim Clancy" in the text doesn't point to CNN's Jim Clancy but to a different one. --85.74.164.156 14:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jim Clancy 

message: I do not believe this is relevant to the CNN article.  A junior-level employee at Netscape being an angsty brat while saving images in Photoshop (then uploading them) is not in any way relevant to allegations of systemic bias at CNN. Shem (talk) 20:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  It had nothing to do with CNN and should not have been there. Equinox137 13:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "asshole.jpg" allegation. 

message: What is wrong or POV with calling Castro and Kim Jong-il dictators?  By looking up the wikipedia definition of dictators, they fit the description. Equinox137 13:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dictator vs. leader or President 

message: The list of criticisms is far too long. I think it should be shortened and summarized. --Berserk798 00:44, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I tend to agree.  The fact that the history section is shorter than the bias section seems quite odd. Boisemedia 03:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:::Expand the history section, then. Shem(talk) 20:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Fox News' bias section is at least four times longer than CNN's with hardly any history at all - I disagree.  Equinox137 14:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: I recently found this news article.  http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16298  Is this true?  I'm asking before I include it in the article.  DyslexicEditor 23:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to be kidding me. Shem(talk) 23:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Osama Bin Ladin work at CNN? 

message: The article states "Since CNN's launch on June 1, 1980, the network has expanded its reach to a number of cable and satellite television networksto only have one listed if there really are only two. I can't seem to find the other one, though. This page lists some of Turner Private Networks' holdings, but it's unclear which might belong to CNN, and the list is old (2001). Any one have any ideas? 18:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Private Networks 

message: :CNN anchor Kyra Phillips ran a piece about the legitimacy of Wikipedia on December 5, 2005, and a poll was placed on the CNN mainpage asking their readers: "Do you trust the anonymously authored online encyclopedia Wikipedia?"
This was added recently and I just wikified it, but I'm thinking it should be removed as self-referencial. Although a link to the quickpoll could be put in External links. Thoughts? - RoyBoy 800 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's notable enough to warrant a mention in the article. I've removed it. Coffee 17:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Eliot 18:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia self-referencial 

message: This section needs to be beefed up.  The FNC section is pretty huge, and CNN certain has more detractors and more incidents than the half-dozen that are listed. -- Jbamb 23:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Two of the three allegations have direct links to cites, and all three incidents are common knowledge that were reported on extensively at the times they occurred. The fact that you personally may not have heard about any of them does not change that fact, nor does it mean that their inclusion in the article constitutes "original research."  Also, if you have a problem with the section, edit it to make it better. You are repeatedly going in and summarily deleting the entire section. Aaron 17:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything that goes against the political grain of the cabal is original research.  Didn't you get the memo? ;) -- Jbamb 17:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Rush, Savage, Ann Coulter, Hannity, newsbusters.org, need I go on? Equinox137 09:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then put the  tag there to ask for citations.  -- Jbamb 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The revert war going on with the controversies and bias section justifies this tag. Inaccurate information and personal editorializing  is being kept in for no other reason than to argue that CNN is part of that mythical 'liberal bias' that the likes of Bill O'Reilly whines about. At the same time, verifiable and cited information dealing with CNN's failure to perform its duties prior to the Iraq war (all this is confessed openly by Turner and other top executive officials, including reporters) have been removed without any discussion whatsoever. Amibidhrohi 15:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll refer to this quote by jbamb, "This section needs to be beefed up. The FNC section is pretty huge, and CNN certain has more detractors and more incidents than the half-dozen that are listed."  everyone keeps having to revert Amib's vandalism on this page and the foxnews page.  in amib's world, cnn does not warrant a controversies page at all whereas controversies should consume the entire FNC page.  i think most fair-minded people would agree that both CNN and FNC deserve a concise and fair controversies section, amib seems to be the only one that disagrees with this. Amib's complaint was that the controversies on this page were not sourced, after they got sourced he still deleted them. i'm calling into question amib's neutrality based on his comments on this page and especially his comments on the FNC page. RonMexico 16:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: wow, so much misinformation, so little time.  "There's no rationale that justifies your stance that the two have to have "Controversy" sections of the same size."  instead of me justifying news sites being treated equally, why don't you justify the sites being treated so blatantly differently?  and no, a memo being sent out doesn't cut it.  "and sites that are cited do NOT imply the information you actually add into the entry."  I didn't add any information, i merely added a couple citations for information that somebody else put up there.  "No source exists that ever argued that a CNN official's giving gifts to the North Korean president implied a bias of any kind."  the section is entitled "CONTROVERSIES and allegation of bias."  "The glaring problem with you and your buddies..."  I don't have any buddies on here, just other Wiki editors who notice the same POV problems with your editing as i do.  "you knowingly add statements that are unsubstantiated"  I didn't add any statements, and everything up there was cited.  apparently, you and only you get to decide what is substantiated to your liking, otherwise you delete it.  of course this scrutiny only applies to statements that you personally don't like or agree with.  RonMexico 13:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: just checked amib's cite to his socialist worker website and the quote cited was directed at the entire news media and not CNN, thus I deleted it.RonMexico 20:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "IF the allegations can be supported with trustworthy sources", yes we definitely need more trustworthy sources such as the esteemed and clearly neutral news source of socialistworker.org.  "The North Korea bit and the paragraph on an error don't have any evidence of actual wrongdoing to support them."  again, the section is entitled "controversies and allegations of bias", the section is not entitled "wrongdoing by CNN".  "these allegations would legally fall in the category of libel."  someone apparently didn't go to law school.  Bluegoose, if you look at the socialistworker site used to support Amib's claim about CNN supporting the war, you will see that the comments made were about the media in general and not CNN specifically. RonMexico 23:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "It's every bit as reliable as Fox News that you so rabidly support."  i'm not sure where you are getting this from.  as i have said, i'm in favor of a concise and fair controversies section for both news sites.  i have never gone and deleted the entire controversies section because i don't like what it says.  this is what you have done.  by the way..."don't have any evidence of actual wrongdoing to support them." i don't think you really want this to be the standard.  if you do, i have some serious editing to do.  RonMexico 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: copying and pasting from the socialistworker website you cited, "CNN REPORTER Christiane Amanpour recently made news when she denounced the media for acting as cheerleaders for the Bush war drive against Iraq. "I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled," it is a "skewed interpretation" for me to think that she was directing her comments against the media in general?  I was not the one who added the the mine coverage story.  although i don't know why one person's opinion is okay to put on here when it is Christiane Amanpour but not okay when it was that New Republic writer's(don't remember his name) blog.  as for who is vandalizing and who is not.  i will leave that for others to decide, although i think it is pretty obvious.  i will note that i have never tried to delete entire sections.  you, on the other hand, have.  "By the way, what's your definition of the word "fair"?"  the same standard on both boards.  on foxnews, the Amib standard is that anything that can be cited belongs on there.  on cnn, the Amib standard has been changing alot, but now it appears to be that there must be evidence of actual wrong-doing.  my definition of fair would involve employing an equal standard, period.  RonMexico 00:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: I'd like to propose we delete the "Similar Networks" section from the page. This section is little more than an inferior copy of :Category:24-hour_television_news_channels, the page already makes it clear that CNN is the original 24-hour news channel, and the page is getting too long as it is. I think we should just add a sentence or two to the effect of "After CNN, dozens of similar networks have come along, please see :Category:24-hour_television_news_channels for a full list," and dump "Similar Networks" entirely.
Thoughts? Objections? --Aaron 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on if we have more to say than the category listing - e.g. date of creation, any links from CNN, differences to CNN etc.--Fangz 04:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well ... the dates seem more like trivia to me than useful information, and describing the differences of all those channels could take an entire page of its own. There's a lot of repetition in there too; all the CNN offshoot networks are listed there even though they already have their own section (CNN#CNN_specialized_channels). Perhaps I should work up a paragraph or two outlining how other news channels around the world have evolved from what CNN started, and use that in place of the current straight list? --Aaron 05:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[CNN#Similar_networks|"Similar Networks" section]] 

message: It's relevant to note that this particular admin has twice blocked me. I won't argue the reason for the first block (3RR), even though my edits and reverts were plainly directly towards moving information added to the entry that fell within the category of original research. 
The second block, which the admin says was due to my 'highly POV' edit, I do take strong exception to. None of my edits even attempted to argue that CNN had a pro-conservative bias (though adding that would constitute balancing the charge that CNN is pro-liberal, which WP advocates in the spirit of NPOV). The information I added simply reflected what was a well-publicized criticism of CNN's performance after 9-11, and their 'kid gloves'(quoted directly from the source)handling of the current administration, especially with regards to pre-war intelligence. I've even challenged Celestianpower to tell me in words exactly in what directing my POV slant went. As always, he/she was silent. Celestianpower has not edited this article once, as far as I can see. He/she has not discussed the edits or warned me of blocks. Aside from the ban itself, Celestianpower engaged in no communication whatsoever. 
I'm going to see what can be done by Wikipedia's higher authorities to deal with this problem. I feel noting all this here is important, because it allows readers to understand what voices are being allowed to speak, and which are being muzzled. I take this seriously because I believe the respecting freedom of speech is an ideal that's to be followed everywhere, even if regulation doesn't require it. I thank the other admins here who have helped temporarily address this problem. Amibidhrohi 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As to my reply being late, sorry, but I've been away for a while and not had time. I'm afraid, you are in fact incorrect. My reason for blocking was two-fold. First, was your 2-3 reverts after your block had expired. I had blocked you for reverting/blanking (per WP:3RR) before and you continued to do so. The second, while out of policy as such (although I could easily claim WP:IAR in this case), was your general POV-pushing and disruptive blanking. There are appropriate channels and  you don't do something repeatedly when it's been contested on the talkpage. --Celestianpower háblame 09:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For further discussion concerning Celestianpower (talk • contribs), please see their talk page. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celestianpower abusing his/her Admin Powers 

message: What did they do to [cnn.com]? I opened it up and went to click where I always do and I found that the whole page was revamped! Does anyone know when they changed it? → J@red talk+ ubx  22:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Website 

message: When dealing with separate articles that would/could have been part of a larger subject had they not been so large themselves, I think it is a practice that has worked out very well to give each one a section in the larger subject article and provide a link to it there.  See the University of Miami entry, Bill O'Reilly Controversies, and Art History as examples.  To have as germane an article as CNN controversies and allegations of bias only linked in the "See Also" section (below "Trivia" and "Similar Networks") seems odd.  I created a section in the main body of the CNN entry and put the link in.  Lawyer2b 04:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving location of  Controversies and Allegations bias link 

message: is this true
*Martin Savidge (Now with ABC News) 
or
*Martin Savidge (Now with NBC News) 
--E-Bod 21:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Martin Savidge]] (Now with ABC/NBC News)  

message: Even though I love Jon Steward, I really wonder if Crossfire was in fact cancelled becuase of Stewart's appearence?  And if its true, i think this section would benefit from an actual reference.  Anyone object if i remove it?  Voyager3 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jon Stewart and Crossfire 

message: Has anyone noticed the small changes made by CNN? I put a quote in.
Its subtitles contain lots of mistakes. 
I understand that written journalistic English shortens headlines, but do they have to use the same rule when talking?
andreasegde 12:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed this information from the Controversies section because there were no sources indicating that this is actually a controversy of any kind. Hal Raglan 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair, but... Today, when watching their Steve Irwin video they were announcing coverage of 9/11 observence with a Flash display that ended: "Real-time coverage 9/11/2001.  Monday."  I know, I know WP:OR.  But someone ought to have covered it.  It's horrendous. --SiobhanHansa 02:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN and its use of English 

message: I think the "replicated by other cable news services " piece is not relevant at all. The original BBC One channel was replicated/copied by BBC 2, ITV, and Channel Four. Is it really interesting?
If I see no reply I will sharpen the scissors. I state this so as not to be accused of vandalism.
andreasegde 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar networks 

message: the bureaus listed here are different to those at the CNN site. CNN lists Lagos, Sydney, Istanbul, Denver in addition to the ones here, while it does not mention Amman, Athens, Detroit, Seattle, New Orleans, Bogota, Brussels, Nairobi, Rio or Sao Paulo. --Astrokey44 03:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bureaus 

message: Can anyone find financial information on CNN?  Revenues, costs, profits?  --LostLeviathan 15:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I know its revenues are about $810 million, thats about it.  I posted the link on the CNN Headline News page if you're interested.  Vikramsidhu 20:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business aspects 

message: I suggest that the title of this article be changed to "Cable News Network."  Though I realize that "CNN" is more popular, the former is the official name of the network.  Similarly, the Wikipedia article title of ABC is "American Broadcasting Company."
Db099221 05:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree... --Adriaan90 15:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: It seems that for some reason this section was deleted from the main article. I'm not sure if any vandalism issues played a role. But if someone could note why it happened, that would certainly clear up some confusion. 71.99.230.137 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the "Current Shows" section

message: *According to WP:NOT : "Wikipedia is not a directory", this includes "TV/Radio Guides". Since it's unlikely that the Wikipedia entry for CNN is going to be updated every time any show has it's schedule changed, and since there are much better places to go to find show times, I'm going to delete the show times from the Current Shows section. Cbuhl79 19:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Shows should not list times

message: The CNN North America broadcast went off the air this morning at around 5am in Canada. It has been replaced by a CNN international broadcast. Is this a blackout put in on purpose due to a new event or could it have something to do with the US elections? If anyone can please inform me of what is being broadcast in the US on CNN? Im looking at thier site and i dont see anything worthy of a blackout, unless they are doing it on the site as well.
Curious One, Wednesday, Oct 25, 2006
:Sometimes CNN switches between U.S. and international for technical or programmatical reasons. They often do it here (South Africa), at least. But yeah, I think this is what probably happened there. Also with breaking news or news conferences or whatever they'd switch to the channel which has the cameras at the event or whatever. --Adriaan90 17:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CNN North America Blacked Out? 

message: I'm just wondering why this show isn't listed under the former programs column.
Tsntana97 06:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evans & Novak