CNN axes more than 100 jobs

[Zanting]

A very interesting read

Embattled CNN Axes More Than 100 Jobs

 

[Tom 1]

A very interesting read

Embattled CNN Axes More Than 100 Jobs

Great, if you consider the promotion of dumbness and lewd & salacious clickbait ads interesting. V. typical of that kind of 'news' site, unfortunately.

 

[Quasiblogo]

But . . . this is fake news. Journalist jobs were not cut.

Seriously, i hope they find meaningful jobs. Just that it is a shame that a once at least centrist news source has gone so radically to the side that pushes to deconstruct a nation that has the tools to always strive for the best. Not a perfect nation, definitely flaws in its practice, but that is no excuse for clamoring for "change" that makes this so much worse.

 

[Tom 1]

But . . . this is fake news. Journalist jobs were not cut. Should make an interesting movie when they get to 300. Brave souls standing in the way of facts.

CNN does seem to be losing ground though. Only having a network that says what you want to hear 90% of the time = it seems. Who wants to have to think about what other people think?

 

[miamited]

A very interesting read

Embattled CNN Axes More Than 100 Jobs

Hi zanting,

I'm not sure I understand your purpose here, but based on your source, I'd guess that it has something to do with finger wagging at CNN. That President Trump is right. CNN is all fake news and poor journalism.

However, I don't think this article is going to do it. The article says that CNN offered buyouts to a group of people and about 100 took the offer. My wife worked 27 years with AT&T and they were going to move the group that she worked in to another city. Since my wife had so much time and was close to qualifying for retirement, they offered her a buyout. I think about a dozen others took them up on the offer, but it wasn't very many who were eligible for the offer. It was only given to those with 25 years of service or more. It was generally just an early retirement package.

My wife got full retirement benefits which included the continuing of our family's health insurance package. Today she gets her full retirement pension and my health insurance (I'm 63) costs $59/month, which includes dental plan. The dental plan pays 80% up to $2,000/year towards qualifying charges. The health insurance is fairly low co-pay plan. I generally pay $25 out of pocket for medical visits.

In our circumstance, it was the best move she could have made. Perhaps those 100 employees at CNN also thought the offer package was a pretty good deal. I agree with the earlier poster that Breibart isn't a particularly reliable news source. You can generally tell by the overuse of descriptive adjectives that they add to define their subjects. The intent is to make you think the same as they do about the position of others rather than just report a news event. Comments such as:

These job cuts are being spun by Brian Stelter, CNN’s left-wing media reporter (who regularly spreads fake news and conspiracy theories)...

A reputable source would have just written that as: The job cuts are being reported by Brian Stelter a media reporter.

Then: For all we know, CNN could have offered these 100-plus employees $1 just to call it a buyout.

Yes, but a reputable source would have checked on that before laying out such a ridiculous charge. Not many people are going to give up their job for a dollar. But they want to plant this idea in your head that these buyouts, just as what my wife was offered, were baaaaad things. So, understand that a lot of the descriptives in this article are planted their to slant your thinking towards theirs.

Friend, don't drink the Kool-Aide.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Zanting]

Hi zanting,

I'm not sure I understand your purpose here, but based on your source, I'd guess that it has something to do with finger wagging at CNN. That President Trump is right. CNN is all fake news and poor journalism.

However, I don't think this article is going to do it. The article says that CNN offered buyouts to a group of people and about 100 took the offer. My wife worked 27 years with AT&T and they were going to move the group that she worked in to another city. Since my wife had so much time and was close to qualifying for retirement, they offered her a buyout. I think about a dozen others took them up on the offer, but it wasn't very many who were eligible for the offer. It was only given to those with 25 years of service or more. It was generally just an early retirement package.

My wife got full retirement benefits which included the continuing of our family's health insurance package. Today she gets her full retirement pension and my health insurance (I'm 63) costs $59/month, which includes dental plan. The dental plan pays 80% up to $2,000/year towards qualifying charges. The health insurance is fairly low co-pay plan. I generally pay $25 out of pocket for medical visits.

In our circumstance, it was the best move she could have made. Perhaps those 100 employees at CNN also thought the offer package was a pretty good deal. I agree with the earlier poster that Breibart isn't a particularly reliable news source. You can generally tell by the overuse of descriptive adjectives that they add to define their subjects. The intent is to make you think the same as they do about the position of others rather than just report a news event. Comments such as:

These job cuts are being spun by Brian Stelter, CNN’s left-wing media reporter (who regularly spreads fake news and conspiracy theories)...

A reputable source would have just written that as: The job cuts are being reported by Brian Stelter a media reporter.

Then: For all we know, CNN could have offered these 100-plus employees $1 just to call it a buyout.

Yes, but a reputable source would have checked on that before laying out such a ridiculous charge. Not many people are going to give up their job for a dollar. But they want to plant this idea in your head that these buyouts, just as what my wife was offered, were baaaaad things. So, understand that a lot of the descriptives in this article are planted their to slant your thinking towards theirs.

Friend, don't drink the Kool-Aide.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Hi Ted...

As a matter of discourse, how about we just say that CNN is "downsizing" coincidentally at the same time it's ratings keep dropping. And regardless of whether employees were offered buyouts or not doesn't change the fact that at least 100 people are no longer employed there.

The "fake news" or propaganda full of disinformation, misinformation, rumors, lies etc. have been utilized by mainstream media for decades longer than Trump has been POTUS...it's just been very blatant and in your face over the past few years. Furthermore, CNN and mainstream media in general have done nothing to prove otherwise, especially in light of the Convington kids coverage and the Jussie Smollette hoax.

But just to be clear...I do understand buyouts...and posted a generic description in brackets below, no disrespect for your personal experience.

(A buyout...If you’re looking to have an employee leave for good, a buyout is the way to go. This usually entails putting together a financial package to offer the employee. The understanding is if the employee is willing to take a severance package, they leave the company forever. In this case, the employee is agreeing to leave and in return, you’ll pay them money.
There’s no standard rules for what to include in a severance package. A buyout plan typically ties to what the employee was earning. For example, it could be an agreement to pay six weeks of salary or for every year the employee worked, the employee gets one week of pay. Your buyout plan can include some health insurance coverage for a specific period of time.)

So really buyouts can most certainly be viewed as compensated corporate layoffs without an option to return.

By the way...I never drink cool aide my friend.

I pray for unity in your country everyday for there is only one truth and a lot of propaganda causing anger and division in your nation.

 

[Tom 1]

The "fake news" or propaganda full of disinformation, misinformation, rumors, lies etc. have been utilized by mainstream media for decades longer than Trump has been POTUS...it's just been very blatant and in your face over the past few years. Furthermore, CNN and mainstream media in general have done nothing to prove otherwise, especially in light of the Convington kids coverage and the Jussie Smollette hoax.

C’mon this really is an absurd exaggeration. Taking the main 2 culprits, NYT and WAPO, certainly overall they have liberal bias, but it’s very rare that they get anything outright wrong. Given the sheer volume of output the wrong or misleading writing is virtually non-existent. Whenever I see a comment like this I ask some version of the same question - what have you got? Show me some articles out of the thousands published in the last few weeks, or months if you like, and the equivalent coverage in the news you rely on, that you think is more accurate. That would be worth looking at to see how well this ‘fake news’ mantra holds up when put under the microscope.

 

[Zanting]

C’mon this really is an absurd exaggeration. Taking the main 2 culprits, NYT and WAPO, certainly overall they have liberal bias, but it’s very rare that they get anything outright wrong. Given the sheer volume of output the wrong or misleading writing is virtually non-existent. Whenever I see a comment like this I ask some version of the same question - what have you got? Show me some articles out of the thousands published in the last few weeks, or months if you like, and the equivalent coverage in the news you rely on, that you think is more accurate. That would be worth looking at to see how well this ‘fake news’ mantra holds up when put under the microscope.

What is not an exaggeration is the number of people who hate Trump based on the democrats narrative reiterated by mainstream media. It cannot be denied that ratings have dropped because people have lost faith in the media being able to tell them the truth.

And really, you don't need me to post any examples...they have been posted already...over an over again by lots of people, here and elsewhere. And more recent ones are outlined in the article posted in the OP. Perhaps you'ld like to pick one of those examples to defend.

 

[miamited]

Hi zanting,

Thanks for your response. You responded:

As a matter of discourse, how about we just say that CNN is "downsizing" coincidentally at the same time it's ratings keep dropping. And regardless of whether employees were offered buyouts or not doesn't change the fact that at least 100 people are no longer employed there.

Sure, I don't have any problem with that and I would say that such an event is common in all business. When business is down some people lose their jobs. Nearly all businesses run through periods of layoffs when revenue streams are reduced.

My complaint with your information source was the attempt that was being made to paint this event as some diabolical reaction of CNN based on their political leanings and all of the negative name calling.

You then wrote:

The "fake news" or propaganda full of disinformation, misinformation, rumors, lies etc. have been utilized by mainstream media for decades longer than Trump has been POTUS...it's just been very blatant and in your face over the past few years. Furthermore, CNN and mainstream media in general have done nothing to prove otherwise, especially in light of the Convington kids coverage and the Jussie Smollette hoax.

You're obviously sold into the understanding of our nation's, and all news sources for that matter, that President Trump has tried to convince us of. I'm not in such agreement. I believe that on the whole, the major news sources do a pretty good job of keeping us informed of what's going on. Are they perfect? No, but then neither am I, so I have to allow for some error, but the way you describe them is not shared by me.

Finally you wrote:

I pray for unity in your country everyday for there is only one truth and a lot of propaganda causing anger and division in your nation.

I agree that there is only one truth. The disagreement comes in our individual understanding of what that one truth really is.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Zanting]

Hi zanting,

Hi again Ted...and thank you for your response as well


(Sure, I don't have any problem with that and I would say that such an event is common in all business. When business is down some people lose their jobs. Nearly all businesses run through periods of layoffs when revenue streams are reduced.)

Agreed...and I agree that this article places the "why" at "fake news" that caused their ratings to drop.

(My complaint with your information source was the attempt that was being made to paint this event as some diabolical reaction of CNN based on their political leanings and all of the negative name calling.)

Well I do believe that propaganda is extremely harmful to a public that relies on, and believes in mainstream media to provide accurate journalism...but you yourself have just used the term "diabolical" to describe your perspective of this article. That in and of itself is the pot calling the kettle black is it not?

Perhaps more significant...Are the points made inaccurate in this article? Are the facts wrong? Why does it seem like a "diabolical" representation to you?

(You're obviously sold into the understanding of our nation's, and all news sources for that matter, that President Trump has tried to convince us of. I'm not in such agreement. I believe that on the whole, the major news sources do a pretty good job of keeping us informed of what's going on. Are they perfect? No, but then neither am I, so I have to allow for some error, but the way you describe them is not shared by me.)

I haven't bought into the Russia hoax and the demonization of the POTUS narrative that mainstream media has said over and over again since even before President Trump became the duly elected POTUS.
Now I'm well aware that President Trump is no more perfect than anyone of us. He like all of us has made mistakes...but not one democrat wants to look at all the good he has done for your nation despite all the noise from the other side. In fact, all I see the democrats doing since even before Donald was duly is refuse to accept the outcome of the election and thwart any attempt to work with him. They just attack him and anyone and everyone supporting him. It really doesn't look good at all for them, or for your country. And many Americans are angry about this too, and really don't want to pay these people to just continually attack the POTUS.

(I agree that there is only one truth. The disagreement comes in our individual understanding of what that one truth really is.)

Indeed...perspective is everything...and truth can stare you right in the face and be pushed aside because there is already a mindset in place that refuses to accept anything or even look at anything that would counter that perspective. Accepting the truth is the real challenge when facts don't support your perspective.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

God bless you as well Ted

 

[Tom 1]

What is not an exaggeration is the number of people who hate Trump based on the democrats narrative reiterated by mainstream media. It cannot be denied that ratings have dropped because people have lost faith in the media being able to tell them the truth.

And really, you don't need me to post any examples...they have been posted already...over an over again by lots of people, here and elsewhere. And more recent ones are outlined in the article posted in the OP. Perhaps you'ld like to pick one of those examples to defend.

To dislike, distrust, or disagree with someone on the basis of what that person says and does isn't the same thing as 'hating' them. This 'haters' label just seems like a convenient tactic people use to get around having to engage seriously with people they disagree with.

Yes there are a few examples of articles, the same ones, that get posted to 'prove' news is fake, but they are literally a handful out of an uncountable number of articles printed within the same time frame they cover. If you can show me a single news outlet that doesn't make occasional false claims I will find an edible hat and eat it. Just on the front page of one section of WAPO today there are over 30 seperate articles, and there are another 7 sections with a similar number of articles in each. If the news you don't like is all 'fake', surely you should be able to find some evidence of that in there somewhere?

What I have seen on sites like Breitbart for example is the use of very transparent tactics to push the reader's thoughts in a certain direction, and push their buttons, whereas outlets like WAPO and NYT at least work to put their views across in a way that doesn't insult the reader's intelligence.

 

[Zanting]

To dislike, distrust, or disagree with someone on the basis of what that person says and does isn't the same thing as 'hating' them. This 'haters' label just seems like a convenient tactic people use to get around having to engage seriously with people they disagree with.


Yes there are a few examples of articles, the same ones, that get posted to 'prove' news is fake, but they are literally a handful out of an uncountable number of articles printed within the same time frame they cover. If you can show me a single news outlet that doesn't make occasional false claims I will find an edible hat and eat it. Just on the front page of one section of WAPO today there are over 30 seperate articles, and there are another 7 sections with a similar number of articles in each. If the news you don't like is all 'fake', surely you should be able to find some evidence of that in there somewhere?


What I have seen on sites like Breitbart for example is the use of very transparent tactics to push the reader's thoughts in a certain direction, and push their buttons, whereas outlets like WAPO and NYT at least work to put their views across in a way that doesn't insult the reader's intelligence.

I work with the public in customer service and I'm speaking from personal experience. Trump hate is real...very real and it began even before he was elected. When you're on the receiving end of such vehement reactions at the mere mention of Trumps name...it certainly is anger and hate coming at you.

Although since the Mueller report came out, it's apparent that at least some of these people have changed their minds, and I believe that more people will change their beliefs once all the investigations into the whole Russia hoax are made public.


There are more than a "few articles" relating to Trump bashing by mainstream media over the past 2 1/2 years. Furthermore, It has nothing to do with like or dislike...it has everything to do with watching these outlets jump on the anti Trump train and accuse without evidence...and they make it up as they go. That has nothing to do with like or dislike...it's just plain wrong.

Besides...no one felt that way about Trump when he was simply an American business tycoon...but running for President turned him into a monster that was going to drag the US into a world war III and destroy the Country...and on and on they went...none of which happened. Then once he was elected it became even worse with this whole Russia hoax that was pushed almost daily into the faces of anyone watching mainstream media.

And...propaganda has everything to do with deception and mind control and nothing to do with the readers intelligence. And yes there is a bit a tit for tat from "sites like Breitbart". I don't disagree.

 

[Tom 1]

I work with the public in customer service and I'm speaking from personal experience. Trump hate is real...very real and it began even before he was elected. When you're on the receiving end of such vehement reactions at the mere mention of Trumps name...it certainly is anger and hate coming at you.

Sure, I have got that impression from various news stories. There are very polarized views in Europe on some politicians also, e.g. some people really hate Margaret Thatcher, or for another example a smaller number of people really didn't/don't like Churchill. It seems to be raised to another level in the US though, but is spreads. I have an old friend from Greece who really, really hates the Obamas, and used to post all kinds of vile stuff about them on FB, during your last elections. I have no idea who garners the most hate but it has been spread around a bit, it's not just directed at Trump. In terms of the media though I think it would be better described as exasperation, frustration, disbelief and other words of that sort, than hate.

There are more than a "few articles" relating to Trump bashing by mainstream media over the past 2 1/2 years. Furthermore, It has nothing to do with like or dislike...it has everything to do with watching these outlets jump on the anti Trump train and accuse without evidence...and they make it up as they go. That has nothing to do with like or dislike...it's just plain wrong.

There are certainly a lot of articles that are critical of Trump. The overall slant of the NYT and WAPO for example is clearly critical of Trump, however they do try and balance that by printing regular round-ups of the views from left, centre and right. That's a whole different kettle of fish to 'fake' news and being 'the enemy of the people' however. It's also necessary as a foil to an outfit like Fox News also, I think, which is very pro-Trump, and appears at least to rely more on appeals to emotion than fact.

Besides...no one felt that way about Trump when he was simply an American business tycoon...but running for President turned him into a monster that was going to drag the US into a world war III and destroy the Country...and on and on they went...none of which happened. Then once he was elected it became even worse with this whole Russia hoax that was pushed almost daily into the faces of anyone watching mainstream media.

Certainly he's much more in the spotlight these days, for the obvious reason of being the US Prez. It's not all new though - there's an older documentary about his mob ties that precedes the mid 2016 book, and his & his fathers racial profiling of tenants was covered in the press back whenever that was, plus his rather bizarre attempts to influence the reporting of his various affairs and divorces over the years, and more broadly his attempts to create the image he still carries of super-success. Russian interference in elections whevever it feels influence would help it's own aims is a long way from being anything that could be called a hoax.

And...propaganda has everything to do with deception and mind control and nothing to do with the readers intelligence. And yes there is a bit a tit for tat from "sites like Breitbart". I don't disagree.

True. I find it hard to take Breitbart seriously just because of their very transparent manipulation tactics and low quality reporting. There are of course quality conservative papers, I think The Hill is one of them, from the few articles I've read.

 

[miamited]

Hi zanting,

If I may address one of your points. You wrote in an earlier post:

Besides...no one felt that way about Trump when he was simply an American business tycoon...but running for President turned him into a monster that was going to drag the US into a world war III and destroy the Country...and on and on they went...none of which happened. Then once he was elected it became even worse with this whole Russia hoax that was pushed almost daily into the faces of anyone watching mainstream media.

That no one felt as you explain towards Trump when he was simply an American business tycoon isn't actually true. Most of us just didn't have any direct dealings with him and his world was separate from the general population and so we weren't particularly aware of all the Donald Trump did as a business man. However, there are plenty of accounts of other business people, especially among those who worked for him, that paint a fairly mean and dishonest picture of Donald Trump even when he was a private business person. He has always been the kind of person to drag someone else through the mud of the legal system over perceived slights and business issues.

Now, however, his actions affect the entire nation. There is not a single person that stands within the borders of our nation that is not affected by the words and deeds of President Trump. That's going to make the scope of the issue a whole lot bigger, and it has. So, I think you might do well to really look at the history of Donald Trump before making this claim of yours that 'no one' felt that way about Trump before he stepped onto the national scene. Yes, you're right that it didn't usually make national news when Donald Trump and one of his businesses screwed over a contractor or threatened someone with long drawn out legal battles over some slight. Just for laughs, here's an old article explaining some of Donald Trump's legal skirmishes in the 30 years before his campaign started.

Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee

There were a lot of people who didn't like Donald Trump. You just didn't know them and weren't running in his circle to know about them. Donald Trump has never been what the general population might consider a particularly 'good' person in his relationships with others.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

But . . . this is fake news. Journalist jobs were not cut.

Seriously, i hope they find meaningful jobs.

They should learn to code. Just like they told those all those in industrial workers who lost their jobs in recent years.

 

[Quasiblogo]

\But, I’m unsure how they would react to working next to people with divergent views

 

[Zanting]

Media propaganda is totally meant to deceive. It isn't even hard to convince people to believe something. All you have to do is get the majority of the media to repeat the same narrative over and over again to the public and those who faithfully rely on specific news outlets to keep them aware of the world around them will mostly fall...hook' line and sinker.

If you don't really pay any attention to the news...just what you hear from others, (like I do working in customer service) you start to become very aware of just how much influence the media has on peoples state of mind. The Bible even tells us the very elect can be deceived...and that nothing that is hidden will remain hidden.

We have to be vigilant and research and think for ourselves. To be so naive as to believe that we are not being manipulated by propaganda in the news is foolhardy.

 

[creslaw]

Media propaganda is totally meant to deceive. It isn't even hard to convince people to believe something. All you have to do is get the majority of the media to repeat the same narrative over and over again to the public and those who faithfully rely on specific news outlets to keep them aware of the world around them will mostly fall...hook' line and sinker.

If you don't really pay any attention to the news...just what you hear from others, (like I do working in customer service) you start to become very aware of just how much influence the media has on peoples state of mind. The Bible even tells us the very elect can be deceived...and that nothing that is hidden will remain hidden.

We have to be vigilant and research and think for ourselves. To be so naive as to believe that we are not being manipulated by propaganda in the news is foolhardy.

I wonder if news outlets have any alternative to picking a side and running with it. Before online news, tv & print media could afford to be more impartial but now with an almost unlimited number of news sources it is necessary to identify your market and cater to their prejudices.

I use Youtube a lot to see what different sides are saying (eg Fox, CNN, etc) but it is very rarely that anything is reported that impartially examines Trump's policies - it seems to be all for or against. If people only use sources they agree with the social divide can only continue to widen ... and now that divide is becoming angry & hostile.

I am so glad that as Christians we can always evaluate what we hear by the words of Scripture to help keep us balanced.