News CNN caught staging Muslim protest.

[Hall Kervean]

Oh yes indeed and I listen mostly the same people you do.

Most of all I want Trump to be successful just so I can see these regressives squirm and squeal like stuck pigs.

See that's one thing I'm confused on.
How can we call them regressives?
The definition is "becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state."
But we're hitting new, uncharted, unexplored lows.
Like in Canada, taking kids away from families if they show up, tell their parents they switched gender, and their mother or father says that they're actually the same gender they were the whole time. (Ben Shapiro, Episode 313)
So by definition they're neither regressive nor progressive.
So I guess they really are special.

 

[Imperator_tenebrae]

See that's one thing I'm confused on.
How can we call them regressives?
The definition is "becoming less advanced; returning to a former or less developed state."
But we're hitting new, uncharted, unexplored lows.
Like in Canada, taking kids away from families if they show up, tell their parents they switched gender, and their mother or father says that they're actually the same gender they were the whole time. (Ben Shapiro, Episode 313)
So by definition they're neither regressive nor progressive.
So I guess they really are special.

Well it's kinda catchy but I overall I call them communists or far-left zealots, liberal moonbats and insert other buzz words thereof.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Well it's kinda catchy but I overall I call them communists or far-left zealots, liberal moonbats and insert other buzz words thereof.

Social justice whimperers because warriors=fighting and fighting is violent and triggering.

 

[JayTee]

Pretty sure that if this was legit, other larger networks like NBC and FOX would be harping on about this in order to boost their own ratings at the expense of CNN. The fact that the primary source for this is a YOUTUBE video tells indicates to me that this is a big old pile of nothing.

 

[Hall Kervean]

Pretty sure that if this was legit, other larger networks like NBC and FOX would be harping on about this in order to boost their own ratings at the expense of CNN. The fact that the primary source for this is a YOUTUBE video tells indicates to me that this is a big old pile of nothing.

There are news articles about it.
And I haven't really found anything about the entire protest being staged, although the shot certainly was.

 

[JayTee]

What articles on what sites? If we're talking trash sites like Beritbart and Shareblue, ignore them. They have an agenda and have no problem twisting the truth to the point of lying in order to push it.

Honestly, I'm not about to say CNN is absolutely flawless, but it's one of the more moderate networks out there. In all likelihood this is just some routine coordination that happens on every network for many different kinds of stories with no intention of deception.

 

[JayTee]

Actually, now that I think about it I'm pretty much convinced that this story is complete nonsense. The biggest flaw in the whole "CNN staging a muslim protest" is that implies that CNN has an agenda.

CNN doesn't have an agenda, it's agenda-less. This is actually not a defense of the network, but more it's biggest flaw (which ironically is the thing that helps prove it's innocence in this case).

CNN is so desperate to appear natural that it will allow two sides to discuss an issue at length and present their case and absolutely refuse to take sides. No matter how stupid that might be.

As a hypothetical example, CNN would allow an Astronomer and a Flat Earther on their network, and allow both sides to argue their case about the shape of the planet. The thing is that we KNOW the Astronomer is going to be correct because we can SEE it from outer space. Despite this, the Flat Earther will not be called out by CNN on the inconsistencies or outright fabrications that he tries to use to support his bogus conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, the Astronomer will present all his facts and evidence and peer reviewed observations that show that the earth is 100% spherical, and CNN will only nod and smile and say "oh that's so interesting!" as though objective reality has no more weight that someone's make-believe.

The end result will be that people will start to think that both sides are "equal" even though one side is completely right. The net result will be an overall dumbing down of their audience, and their refusal to take a side hurts their audience's ability to make an informed decision.

...

As you can tell from the above rant, I don't like CNN much, if at all. I take strong offense to their insistence on neutrality, but at least I know that their insistence on avoiding the appearance of bias can be counted on, which is how I can say with near 100% certainty that they wouldn't stage some muslim protest or some other story for the sake of pushing an agenda.

 

[thoughtless]

Actually, now that I think about it I'm pretty much convinced that this story is complete nonsense. The biggest flaw in the whole "CNN staging a muslim protest" is that implies that CNN has an agenda.

CNN doesn't have an agenda, it's agenda-less. This is actually not a defense of the network, but more it's biggest flaw (which ironically is the thing that helps prove it's innocence in this case).

CNN is so desperate to appear natural that it will allow two sides to discuss an issue at length and present their case and absolutely refuse to take sides. No matter how stupid that might be.

As a hypothetical example, CNN would allow an Astronomer and a Flat Earther on their network, and allow both sides to argue their case about the shape of the planet. The thing is that we KNOW the Astronomer is going to be correct because we can SEE it from outer space. Despite this, the Flat Earther will not be called out by CNN on the inconsistencies or outright fabrications that he tries to use to support his bogus conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, the Astronomer will present all his facts and evidence and peer reviewed observations that show that the earth is 100% spherical, and CNN will only nod and smile and say "oh that's so interesting!" as though objective reality has no more weight that someone's make-believe.

The end result will be that people will start to think that both sides are "equal" even though one side is completely right. The net result will be an overall dumbing down of their audience, and their refusal to take a side hurts their audience's ability to make an informed decision.

...

As you can tell from the above rant, I don't like CNN much, if at all. I take strong offense to their insistence on neutrality, but at least I know that their insistence on avoiding the appearance of bias can be counted on, which is how I can say with near 100% certainty that they wouldn't stage some muslim protest or some other story for the sake of pushing an agenda.

Honestly this whole post represents a lot of my grievances with the media as a whole. SO many people don't want to appear as "less tolerant" just because they choose the side that is without question in the right, and it really does have a negative effect about how society as a whole makes decisions. It's the same with global warming, and it's really just annoying.

But to add my own piece to this, from what I've read on my own time, this really just seems like they didn't stage the protest, but staged the shot that they took, which is actually a really common practice. This doesn't necessarily mean that it's right to do what they did, as they did manipulate the scene in one way or another, but they didn't go as far as to stage a protest.

 

[Idea]

JayTee does make some good arguments (and thank yee for that, I was starting ta get desperate here... ), though I am still a bit weary... I always knew news in general and my particular source of international news in particular (late night talk shows) were doubtful as information sources at best, but I never really suspected news outlets of staging things like that until I saw the video... Regardlesss of being true or fake, could there be a bottom of truth to it? That is the question on the back of my mind... Crap-

 

[Shireling]

Actually, now that I think about it I'm pretty much convinced that this story is complete nonsense. The biggest flaw in the whole "CNN staging a muslim protest" is that implies that CNN has an agenda.

CNN doesn't have an agenda, it's agenda-less. This is actually not a defense of the network, but more it's biggest flaw (which ironically is the thing that helps prove it's innocence in this case).

CNN is so desperate to appear natural that it will allow two sides to discuss an issue at length and present their case and absolutely refuse to take sides. No matter how stupid that might be.

As a hypothetical example, CNN would allow an Astronomer and a Flat Earther on their network, and allow both sides to argue their case about the shape of the planet. The thing is that we KNOW the Astronomer is going to be correct because we can SEE it from outer space. Despite this, the Flat Earther will not be called out by CNN on the inconsistencies or outright fabrications that he tries to use to support his bogus conspiracy theory.

Meanwhile, the Astronomer will present all his facts and evidence and peer reviewed observations that show that the earth is 100% spherical, and CNN will only nod and smile and say "oh that's so interesting!" as though objective reality has no more weight that someone's make-believe.

The end result will be that people will start to think that both sides are "equal" even though one side is completely right. The net result will be an overall dumbing down of their audience, and their refusal to take a side hurts their audience's ability to make an informed decision.

...

As you can tell from the above rant, I don't like CNN much, if at all. I take strong offense to their insistence on neutrality, but at least I know that their insistence on avoiding the appearance of bias can be counted on, which is how I can say with near 100% certainty that they wouldn't stage some muslim protest or some other story for the sake of pushing an agenda.

If you think CNN is non-biased, just ask yourself something. After the election of Barrack Obama, did they have a pundit on their network that called the election a "blacklash"? And say that black people had wanted to seize power back from whites in this country by voting for Obama? No. Of course not. That would be silly. It would be almost as silly as saying that the Trump election had been a "whitelash" or something like that.

CNN is an incredibly biased network. Not because they come out and say, "The left wing position is right." They have more tact than that. They (and all media outlets) use a technique called the Overton Window to create narratives and use those narratives to influence culture, and by influencing the culture the politics. Think of it like bias of omission.

CNN does not give fair coverage to conservative viewpoints. I used to watch CNN everyday, and I can tell you that at no point did I ever hear a CNN anchor or pundit say something like, "Maybe abortion could be considered immoral." or "As a conservative," or "maybe we need less taxes on the rich." So on and so forth. It's not that they come out and say, "Conservative views are wrong." They just don't give them a platform. To the average viewer of CNN, the world is full of gay pride parades and Muslim migrant solidarity marches and the conservative trolls are hiding under the bridge. It's a narrative that they spin, the same narrative that Obama spun with the whole "right side of history" shenanigans. All the things he likes coincidentally are on the "right" side of history, while the things he doesn't like are on the wrong side. CNN is the same way.

For a fair comparison, think of Fox News. They have token liberals on every now and again, but they mainly serve as weak debate opponents to root against. It's debate theatre. The news is preordained to vindicate conservatism (if you can call it that at this point). The only difference is that CNN's debate theatre and selective coverage preordained to vindicate left-wing opinions.

Both CNN and Fox News are indicative of the problem in the news media. The breakdown of the Post-War Consensus that allowed centrist anchors like Walter Kronkite to just tell people the fucking news. It shouldn't be controversy or spin. The news should be boring, because telling the news is a civil service. It's not supposed to be entertainment or therapy for your political hurt feelings.

 

[FTR]

^
CNN is so obviously left I can't understand how anyone except them could argue otherwise.
Besides that, there was an obvious straw-manning. Flat-Earth moron vs. Astronomer is completely unrelated to any discussion that could even remotely be seen as political. It can barely pass as social. It's more of a neat little segment to laugh at.

Unless the flat-Earther is an influential figure....then it's just scary.

Look at the coverage of elections, bills, legislation, etc from different news outlets and if the their leanings aren't immediately discernible to you then I don't know what to tell you.


Here's a thought. Say someone looked at it with a right v left outlook, CNN being leftist in this case.
Stereotype says conservatives are old testament, liver-spotted, church-goers.
With that in mind, it'd seem like an undercut to the right. "Are they implying conservatives are flat-Earth psychos?"

It's Us vs Them again and boom, we're in this room now

Maybe a lot of what media puts out isn't innately biased or slanted
It's probably very much up to who's watching and what spin they decide to put on it
BUT having that in mind, wouldn't that make any use of subliminals, under/misrepresentation, straw-manning, etc even more underhanded? KNOWING this thought process will probably take place?
From what I can tell, I don't think anyone here really cares if the protest was staged or not, most won't argue that CNN is lefty leaning either. The problem here is the right wants to believe CNN to have staged it and the left is willing to defend it because of same-group preference.
If Fox had been accused of staging protest it'd be the inverse scenario, guaranteed.

 

[JayTee]

Idea As a rule of thumb, while CNN isn't partisan, it also isn't a good source of news either, as they tend to simplify and sensationalize their stories for the sake of more viewership and ratings. If you want to watch the news to get better informed, try NBC (not to be confused with MSNBC) NPR or PBS. All very neutral with a high degree of accuracy and information.

If you think CNN is non-biased, just ask yourself something. After the election of Barrack Obama, did they have a pundit on their network that called the election a "blacklash"? And say that black people had wanted to seize power back from whites in this country by voting for Obama? No. Of course not. That would be silly. It would be almost as silly as saying that the Trump election had been a "whitelash" or something like that.

Different context entirely. The term "whitelash" was used to describe the large turnout of people who were inspired by Trum's anti-muslim and anti-American rhetoric during the primary and general election. Not about a group of whites or blacks who voted in droves to try and seize power for their particular skin color.

CNN is an incredibly biased network. Not because they come out and say, "The left wing position is right." They have more tact than that. They (and all media outlets) use a technique called the Overton Window to create narratives and use those narratives to influence culture, and by influencing the culture the politics. Think of it like bias of omission.

The Overton Window describes topics that public figures and news outlets think are safe to talk or popular to talk about, not a method of concealing information to push a narrative. To put it another way, the networks and public figures use the Overton Window to talk about things that people are already interested in talking about. It's a self-reinforcing tool, rather than a tool of deception.

CNN does not give fair coverage to conservative viewpoints. I used to watch CNN everyday, and I can tell you that at no point did I ever hear a CNN anchor or pundit say something like, "Maybe abortion could be considered immoral." or "As a conservative," or "maybe we need less taxes on the rich." So on and so forth. It's not that they come out and say, "Conservative views are wrong." They just don't give them a platform. To the average viewer of CNN, the world is full of gay pride parades and Muslim migrant solidarity marches and the conservative trolls are hiding under the bridge. It's a narrative that they spin, the same narrative that Obama spun with the whole "right side of history" shenanigans. All the things he likes coincidentally are on the "right" side of history, while the things he doesn't like are on the wrong side. CNN is the same way.

Again, CNN really only talks about things that it think's the majority of people want to hear about. It's a huge network, so they aren't going to push any controversial subjects unless it's already a subject that the bulk of the country is already discussing, and even then they're take a position of extreme neutrality to avoid the appearance of bias. A big reason CNN doesn't talk about conservative viewpoints is because they don't get the ratings CNN wants to get. Which, ultimately, is the only thing they care about.

For a fair comparison, think of Fox News. They have token liberals on every now and again, but they mainly serve as weak debate opponents to root against. It's debate theatre. The news is preordained to vindicate conservatism (if you can call it that at this point). The only difference is that CNN's debate theatre and selective coverage preordained to vindicate left-wing opinions.

Somewhat of a poor comparison, but I appreciate the sentiment behind your intentions. FOX is basically a conservative propaganda network at this point, and if anyone wants to become aware of what's going in the world, it's a network someone should avoid like the plague. Sorta like MSNBC, they haven't gone full liberal propaganda just yet, but they're close.

Both CNN and Fox News are indicative of the problem in the news media. The breakdown of the Post-War Consensus that allowed centrist anchors like Walter Kronkite to just tell people the fucking news. It shouldn't be controversy or spin. The news should be boring, because telling the news is a civil service. It's not supposed to be entertainment or therapy for your political hurt feelings.

Agree, 100%. The removal of the Fairness Doctrine basically gave networks the ability to push whatever story they wanted with whatever perspective they wanted, without regards to the truth. There are still networks that adhere to a higher standards, though, and you can generally trust them to tell you the truth, even if it's something you don't want to hear. Heck, being told the truth, especially if it's something you don't want to hear, is something that I consider to be my personal litmus test for a network. I would rather hear an uncomfortable truth than a comforting lie.

 

[JayTee]

God, I can't believe I'm being pushed in to a position where I'm actually defending CNN. It's a terribly simplistic and sensationalizing network, but it really only talks about things people want to hear. There are much better networks out there.


FTR The Astronomer vs Flat Earther is an analogy. Maybe not the best one, but certainly not an attempt to straw man someone. I could do a lot better than that if I wanted to push an agenda.

That said, you may want to avoid "us vs them" style attitudes, it really only hurts the chances of having a discussion and finding out the truth by forcing a confrontational mindset that doesn't need to exist for the sake of conversation.

 

[FTR]

God, I can't believe I'm being pushed in to a position where I'm actually defending CNN. It's a terribly simplistic and sensationalizing network, but it really only talks about things people want to hear. There are much better networks out there.


FTR The Astronomer vs Flat Earther is an analogy. Maybe not the best one, but certainly not an attempt to straw man someone. I could do a lot better than that if I wanted to push an agenda.

That said, you may want to avoid "us vs them" style attitudes, it really only hurts the chances of having a discussion and finding out the truth by forcing a confrontational mindset that doesn't need to exist for the sake of conversation.

Which is why no one here has it? It's just the reality of why this happened that you seem to continuously ignore. You're defending CNN because you want to. No one you're responding to attacked CNN, we just said they are in no way neutral and because of that they can be seen as having a leaning, making this story more believable to those who are predisposed to.
It doesn't matter what you or I believe CNN to be, it matters what's popularly accepted and the psychological role that plays in interpreting what they put out and how they do it. Especially, when it's not clean-cut coverage but organization of a stage or in this case a shot (as harmless as it is).
Messages are messages large or small, intended or not, it's things like this people with the power to "make news" should and probably do think about.
To me this was never about the actual protest, I could care less, it was about the fundamental idea.

and btw, logical fallacies don't have to be intended for them to exist. If anything, the fact you didn't mean it that way (which I knew and figured I made very clear I did) only proves that what you mean doesn't matter. It's how you say it and how it's interpreted that matters.

 

[JayTee]

Which is why no one here has it? It's just the reality of why this happened that you seem to continuously ignore. You're defending CNN because you want to. No one you're responding to attacked CNN, we just said they are in no way neutral and because of that they can be seen as having a leaning, making this story more believable to those who are predisposed to.

People have been attacking CNN throughout this thread by accusing them of staging a protest. I am not so much defending CNN as I am pointing out how nonsensical and inconsistent it would be for them to do so. I'm not a fan of CNN, they're a simplistic network that doesn't offer any in-depth information, but their only saving grace is that they are neutral enough that count on them to not have a bias.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe CNN to be, it matters what's popularly accepted and the psychological role that plays in interpreting what they put out and how they do it. Especially, when it's not clean-cut coverage but organization of a stage or in this case a shot (as harmless as it is).

You're right, it doesn't matter what someone believes CNN to be because beliefs don't matter in this context. It is objectively true that CNN is a low quality but ultimately nonpartisan network. They may currently give the illusion of being partisan, but that's only because the big topic these days is the current controversies of the current republican administration. Even then, however, the only reason they continue to report those stories is because that's what people are interested in. It's not some grand conspiracy to push an agenda, it's just ratings.

Messages are messages large or small, intended or not, it's things like this people with the power to "make news" should and probably do think about.
To me this was never about the actual protest, I could care less, it was about the fundamental idea.

Then you'll be happy to know that major news networks DO think about the impact their stories will have, and will more often than not confer with people involved in those stories to make sure that they're getting all the facts out there as accurately as possible.

and btw, logical fallacies don't have to be intended for them to exist. If anything, the fact you didn't mean it that way (which I knew and figured I made very clear I did) only proves that what you mean doesn't matter. It's how you say it and how it's interpreted that matters.

I'm not even sure what you are talking about here. Are you talking about my analogy, which was intended to illustrate my overall irritation and dislike of CNN? I'll need you to point out were I used a logical fallacy in order to better address it.

 

[FTR]

JayTee
The problem I keep encountering is all of your arguments operate on the assumption you seem to have that what you happen to think is somehow the correct way of thinking and anything that points to the contrary is wrong. That, and the fact you're countering points I never made. It is definitely not objectively true in the slightest that CNN is nonpartisan and the fact you keep insisting it is, is honestly a little strange.
Like, did you just seriously say "giving the illusion of being partisan"? What does that even mean? You can't be illusory about your position without, by definition, having a position, illusory or not.

Who said anything about conspiracy theories? What are you toking? Having an agenda and being part of a conspiracy aren't the same thing.
Even if they're after ratings and not leftist it literally doesn't change a damned thing about anything I've been saying. All you did was switch their goal from one thing to another.
Really, your constant asserting that they're only after ratings makes the accusation more likely, though still probably not very likely.

I don't know what about skew and omission you don't understand. Facts can be as accurate as you want but they can mean very different things when they're not all there.
I honestly don't care about CNN, the left, the right, the North or the South, or whatever is driving you to make a point of things I'm not even arguing.
All I know is, you don't have to search very far or very long to find reasons and examples why no news network is even generally nonpartisan.

Wait...do you really not see the problem with expressing irritation in a, supposed, argument with exaggerated analogies? It's really neither here nor there and I probably shouldn't have even brought it up...
But, come on

Because you obviously don't seem to understand this; I am totally nonpartisan in what this discussion was originally about. I don't care about any motive, network, cause or dilemma. I just think that given the tense state of the world, doing anything for any reason to benefit from the animosity of the people is messed up.

 

[JayTee]

I can hardly be blamed for being confidant in my knowledge when I try make a point of correcting myself whenever I come across something that shows that I'm wrong. If this offends you, then I can't help that.

That said, I will concede that (after doing some digging) CNN isn't completely non-partisan, and they're somewhat left of center. However, the likelyhood of them staging a muslim protest is staggeringly low, as a news network lives and dies on it's credibility.

If it ever came out that they were generating untrue content, as the video OP posted implies, it would ruin their reputation as ever other major news network would be (as I mentioned earlier) shouting it to the heavens to show how much better and more reliable they are in order to snatch up any CNN viewers that would stop watching them.

I'm not so much defending CNN, as pointing out that the likelihood of them deliberately producing false content is so low that it's not even worth considering that it might be true.

That said, if there is solid, indisputable proof that they are generating the proverbial "Fake news", then again, other networks would be using it to promote their own network at the expense of CNN. Ratings are how networks get money (via advertisers) so a network that doesn't get viewers isn't going to get ratings, and isn't going to get sponsored by advertisers, and isn't going be getting money.

There is, frankly, too much risk with too little of a reward for them to just start pushing out fake news stories for me to take the above video seriously.

 

[FTR]

Ok, well great job saying what I just said back at me and then again arguing against a view I never aligned with, just to get the last word in.
Fox has cover the "fake news" controversy and they don't even have to blow it out of proportion because our President already did that.
Fox isn't ranting about CNN and all this "fake news" stuff because there's nothing there as of yet. Which I, and several other people, have said.
This'll be the last time I say this as well as my last response.
That was never the point. The point was you were wrong about CNN not being left leaning, which to an extent shows you had no idea what you were talking about if you are only just now realizing this, and the fact that fake or not, intended or otherwise, the notion of certain stations pushing a political narrative, even if ever so slightly, is very real. This scenario is a a possible example of this though, to quote you, "maybe not the best one"

K, bye!

 

[JayTee]

Well, I never really cared about CNN being left leaning or not. It was just one argument I had to show that the linked was bogus (the other being the absurd risk/reward ratio). I'm mature enough to admit it when I make a mistake, so I don't get why you feel the need to pretend this is a "victory' or whatever.

But sure, whatever makes you feel like you "won." Not really my problem either way.

 

[FTR]

Can't help myself.

You really shouldn't use quotation marks if what your quoting doesn't exist in the context you're using it.
I literally never said or even implied anything like that.
I can't believe you still don't get that I don't even agree with the video.
Once again you're assigning me whatever argument and goal is most convenient for you.
Sound familiar?

Honestly, the way you act kinda means I lost. Seeing how you still missed my point, and obviously view me as some kind of adversary that you can beat or lose to (even though our views are more compatible than not...).
If it bothers you so much then you win. How about that?
You're right, CNN is nonpartisan and they didn't stage the protest. Other stations do the same, so that makes it ok. There's also nothing potentially dangerous about painting specific pictures with news stories, news outlets are super straightedge organizations.

Congrats

 

[JayTee]

I honestly don't really care.

 

[I I I I I I]

I did my research, and for the record, this claim is decidedly untrue. Black Sun , it's irresponsible to spread false information.

SOURCE

 

[Jackstack]

I did my research, and for the record, this claim is decidedly untrue. Black Sun , it's irresponsible to spread false information.

SOURCE

"But Snopes is Liberal" say every right-winger who's proven wrong.

 

[RIPSaidCone]

more moderate

CNN...moderate?

That almost makes "They're turning the friggen frogs gay" seem reasonable.

Also clearly all these bigots in this thread are Russian spies sent to influence our political system because whenever the left loses it's never their fault. Remember folks, the left loves all cultures and peoples, apart from the Russians, they can go fuck themselves.

 

[JayTee]

CNN...moderate?

That almost makes "They're turning the friggen frogs gay" seem reasonable.

If you'd actually paid attention, you'd notice that I conceded that point already. It's a closed discussion point you're bringing up for basically no reason.

Also clearly all these bigots in this thread are Russian spies sent to influence our political system because whenever the left loses it's never their fault. Remember folks, the left loves all cultures and peoples, apart from the Russians, they can go fuck themselves.

But by all means, continue throwing out mischaracterizations and snide comments. Those will surely lead to a healthy and robust conversation about the current sociopolitical climate and wont at all send the thread in to a downward spiral of pointless yelling and name calling.

inb4 threadlock, as the kids say.