This is why CNN's brand is in the tank.

[WVPATX]

Their bias is off the charts, not even trying to hide it anymore.

CNN’s latest contribution to the Internet is a clock, keeping track of exactly how long it’s been since President Trump attacked someone on Twitter.

The, like, totes necessary, y’all, widget was added just after 3:00 pm, EST Wednesday and points to Trump’s Tuesday claim that the “time for trivial matters has passed.”

“Trump’s pivot to mellower rhetoric is actually a few days old. He hasn’t knocked, tweaked or attacked anyone on Twitter since Sunday afternoon,” the page reads. “We’ll see how long it lasts.”

 

[moe]

Their bias is off the charts, not even trying to hide it anymore.

CNN’s latest contribution to the Internet is a clock, keeping track of exactly how long it’s been since President Trump attacked someone on Twitter.

The, like, totes necessary, y’all, widget was added just after 3:00 pm, EST Wednesday and points to Trump’s Tuesday claim that the “time for trivial matters has passed.”

“Trump’s pivot to mellower rhetoric is actually a few days old. He hasn’t knocked, tweaked or attacked anyone on Twitter since Sunday afternoon,” the page reads. “We’ll see how long it lasts.”

CNN is helping him change his ways, they want to see him succeed.

 

[Keyser76]

He hates to watch CNN as much as Trump does. Imagine having to defend this asshat and his incompetent team of bumblers, freaking Commie lovers all of them, lol.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Their bias is off the charts, not even trying to hide it anymore.

CNN’s latest contribution to the Internet is a clock, keeping track of exactly how long it’s been since President Trump attacked someone on Twitter.

The, like, totes necessary, y’all, widget was added just after 3:00 pm, EST Wednesday and points to Trump’s Tuesday claim that the “time for trivial matters has passed.”

“Trump’s pivot to mellower rhetoric is actually a few days old. He hasn’t knocked, tweaked or attacked anyone on Twitter since Sunday afternoon,” the page reads. “We’ll see how long it lasts.”

On the contrary, PATX, I think it is humorous and almost an olive branch being handed by CNN. It's like they're saying, "...Ok, look, we've both said some things we'd take back if we could so this is a funny way of saying 'no harm, no foul', we're sorry."

 

[WVPATX]

On the contrary, PATX, I think it is humorous and almost an olive branch being handed by CNN. It's like they're saying, "...Ok, look, we've both said some things we'd take back if we could so this is a funny way of saying 'no harm, no foul', we're sorry."

I and I believe the Trump team does not look at it that way. I was actually shocked to see CNN reduced to this level of stupidity. I think it is snarky and condescending.

Maybe your interpretation is correct, but many, many like me will not see it that way.

 

[atlkvb]

On the contrary, PATX, I think it is humorous and almost an olive branch being handed by CNN. It's like they're saying, "...Ok, look, we've both said some things we'd take back if we could so this is a funny way of saying 'no harm, no foul', we're sorry."

ex-pat they could clean up their rep with one non negative story about his health care initiative...examining if his reforms could work? Not a cheerleader piece, just a rational objective analysis of what's gone wrong with the ACA (plenty) and how he's trying to address it with his and the Republican's proposals.

That would be good Journalism, and very informative as long as they kept their slants and bias out of it. It's an important story that needs to be told, both what's wrong with it (ACA) and a close look at Trump's proposed reforms.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

Maybe your interpretation is correct, but many, many like me will not see it that way.

I laughed when I read it and thought it was very clever and almost an appeasement.

 

[WVPATX]

I laughed when I read it and thought it was very clever and almost an appeasement.

If the blogs I read are any indication, not many conservatives agree with you. CNN needs to win back credibility. This doesn't help even if it was not intended the way it is being interpreted. Why take the risk?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

ex-pat they could clean up their rep with one non negative story about his health care initiative...examining if his reforms could work? Not a cheerleader piece, just a rational objective analysis of what's gone wrong with the ACA (plenty) and how he's trying to address it with his and the Republican's proposals.

That would be good Journalism, and very informative as long as they kept their slants and bias out of it. It's an important story that needs to be told, both what's wrong with it (ACA) and a close look at Trump's proposed reforms.

All the cable networks could stand with a little evening of the playing field. I went to the gym at noon today and FOX News was on the TV. I was the only one in there at the time and could have changed it to something else, but I left it on as I seldom watch FOX, mainly because of my dislike and distrust of Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not sure what was even on, 5 people sitting on a couch yelling at the left. I thought to myself how much more interesting this program would be if the guy in the middle of the couch moderated a discussion with two lefties and two righties about whatever topic de jour.

Same for CNN. Mod could favor one side or the other, but for goodness sake have some diversity of opinion and let us work it out for ourselves. It may make the electorate a bit more savvy. But I don't think that's what they want.

 

[atlkvb]

All the cable networks could stand with a little evening of the playing field. I went to the gym at noon today and FOX News was on the TV. I was the only one in there at the time and could have changed it to something else, but I left it on as I seldom watch FOX, mainly because of my dislike and distrust of Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not sure what was even on, 5 people sitting on a couch yelling at the left. I thought to myself how much more interesting this program would be if the guy in the middle of the couch moderated a discussion with two lefties and two righties about whatever topic de jour.

Same for CNN. Mod could favor one side or the other, but for goodness sake have some diversity of opinion and let us work it out for ourselves. It may make the electorate a bit more savvy. But I don't think that's what they want.

You're right. It's all about creating tension, drama, high emotions, screaming, yelling.

Informing?

Er, uh...what's that?

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

You're right. It's all about creating tension, drama, high emotions, screaming, yelling.

Informing?

Er, uh...what's that?

Yeah, it's ratings. Really FOX News and MSNBC are "affinity networks", not news networks. They represent the views of the ratings base that supports their advertising. I don't know why we even count any TV news network as MSM as it is not really what they are, CNN included.

 

[WVPATX]

All the cable networks could stand with a little evening of the playing field. I went to the gym at noon today and FOX News was on the TV. I was the only one in there at the time and could have changed it to something else, but I left it on as I seldom watch FOX, mainly because of my dislike and distrust of Rupert Murdoch.

I'm not sure what was even on, 5 people sitting on a couch yelling at the left. I thought to myself how much more interesting this program would be if the guy in the middle of the couch moderated a discussion with two lefties and two righties about whatever topic de jour.

Same for CNN. Mod could favor one side or the other, but for goodness sake have some diversity of opinion and let us work it out for ourselves. It may make the electorate a bit more savvy. But I don't think that's what they want.

This issue is not limited to cable. I posted a study earlier of the main stream media first 30 day coverage. The most extensive study of the media thus far. 88% of Trump's coverage was negative. You have to work very, very hard to get to that level of negativity. The MSM needs ideological diversity in the worst way. The NY Times Executive Editor admitted less than two months ago that the NY Times just does not understand religion. How is this possible for the "Paper of Record?"

No wonder trust in the media is so low. Just this morning, Mad Dog was quoted as being extremely "pissed" off at NBC for their false reporting on the intelligence we received during our raid in Yemen where our Seal was killed.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

The MSM needs ideological diversity in the worst way.

If the NYT presented hard news with both sides of the story and saved their commentary for the Opinion page, would you read it?

I'm not sure you would, but I only know you from what I read on here and that says, "doubtful".

 

[WVPATX]

If the NYT presented hard news with both sides of the story and saved their commentary for the Opinion page, would you read it?

I'm not sure you would, but I only know you from what I read on here and that says, "doubtful".

You don't know me. I read (subscribed) to the NY Times daily for years and years. I only stopped subscribing when their hard news became embedded with opinion. I was a partner in the world's largest consultancy and the NY Times was considered must reading. But then their paper took a very, very far left turn. Pinch's father was much smarter and a much better newsman.

 

[WVex-pat in GA]

I was a partner in the world's largest consultancy

McKinsey?

 

[WVPATX]

McKinsey?

Accenture. Started in the MICD (Management Information Consulting Division) of Arthur Andersen in Pittsburgh. We changed our name in 1988 to Andersen Consulting. Went public in the early 2000's and renamed it Accenture.