CNN waves the yellow flag on journalism; embraces tabloid status

[AllButNone]

Then CNN got lucky.

It doesn't change anything when it comes to the policy of printing news that has no substantiation behind it, though. No one would let a Governor or a corporate executive get away with publicizing, widely, some sensationalist story--but presenting absolutely nothing along with it that might lend it credibility.

We used to make fun of National Enquirer-type tabloid reporting on UFOs landing on the roof of the White House or whatever, but now they back up their stories better than some of the nation's most prominent newspapers.

I agree, in part. Articles that use anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt. However, there's nothing particularly wrong with offering a paper a degree of provisional trust, provided that the stories it publishes have a history of being true.

Anonymity is an important protection. It lets sources reveal pertinent information which in turn helps to make politicians accountable to the public. That anonymity is a feature, not a bug.

Still, anonymity can be abused. CNN is basically trading on its credibility in reporting these stories. If the stories end up being inaccurate, CNN will have squandered it's credibility, making it irrelevant.

And that's kind of the problem America facing right now. Right now it feels like either it's going through the biggest political scandal in its history, or we're instead seeing a complete collapse in the credibility of traditional media. It's one or the other (or both), and at the moment it's premature to conclude either.

 

[Albion]

I agree, in part. Articles that use anonymous sources should be taken with a grain of salt. However, there's nothing particularly wrong with offering a paper a degree of provisional trust, provided that the stories it publishes have a history of being true.

Then there wouldn't be much reason to take what this one publishes with any degree of provisional trust. Simply having had a continuous existence for a long time surely wouldn't do it.

Anonymity is an important protection.

Agreed. But if the source cannot be revealed, a responsible news agency would not publish accusations and suggest that they are most likely true.

Still, anonymity can be abused. CNN is basically trading on its credibility in reporting these stories. If the stories end up being inaccurate, CNN will have squandered it's credibility, making it irrelevant.

Yes, it appears that CNN is gradually making itself irrelevant. All the viewership statistics show that trend. And we might also mention several notable egg-on-face incidents involving CNN recently that have helped it along.

However, in the meantime, fake news coming from such as CNN is dutifully picked up by other media that have a similar editorial bias and it is then disseminated more widely until it becomes the "everybody knows" kind of wisdom that afflicts numbskulls sitting on barstools spouting off nonsense with the assurance that "if it's in the newspaper, it has to be true."

 

[KCfromNC]

However, in the meantime, fake news coming from such as CNN

Citation needed.

 

[AllButNone]

Then there wouldn't be much reason to take what this one publishes with any degree of provisional trust. Simply having had a continuous existence for a long time surely wouldn't do it.

You can certainly take that position. If you don't feel CNN is credible, that's completely valid, and I'll take your word for it that you've seen enough false stories to justify that position. However, like or not, for a lot of people it does have enough established credibility.

But if the source cannot be revealed, a responsible news agency would not publish accusations and suggest that they are most likely true.

I don't think that's true. There are ethical requirements when it comes to anonymous sources. Here are the guidelines for NPR, but they're pretty similar to anywhere else. One takeaway from it is that if an anonymous source is going to be used, CNN needs to be pretty sure it's credible, and I don't think it's unreasonable for CNN to state this.

At the moment, it's not clear to me that CNN is making a major breach of ethics. I think the argument is there that it's protecting whistleblowing. A lot is going to depend on how the Trump story plays out. We shall see.

Well, CNN is gradually making itself irrelevant. All the viewership statistics show that trend. And we might also mention several sensational egg-on-face incidents involving CNN recently that have helped it along.

Very possibly. I haven't see any major egg-on-face incidents, though I have seen some minor mistakes. My own experience with CNN is that it tends to be selective about the stories it reports, which can lead to a misinformed view of what's going on if it's a person's only source of news.

 

[Albion]

You can certainly take that position. If you don't feel CNN is credible, that's completely valid, and I'll take your word for it that you've seen enough false stories to justify that position. However, like or not, for a lot of people it does have enough established credibility.

Well, you know that it USED TO. That's when CNN seemed like a unique news channel dedicated solely to news gathering, unlike the main networks that gave us limited news stories at 6 and 11 PM. Almost everyone saw it that way.

But times change, even as you yourself noted.

 

[AllButNone]

Well, you know that it USED TO. That's when CNN seemed like a unique news channel dedicated solely to news gathering, unlike the main networks that gave us limited news stories at 6 and 11 PM. Almost everyone saw it that way.

Like I said, it's totally reasonable for you to distrust CNN. But other people are going to see different things and weigh the evidence differently, and it's also fair that they do so. There's a lot of subjectivity in all of this.

What I do know is some people are going to be eating a lot of crow when all of the dust settles. I'm making no bets on who, though.

 

[Albion]

Like I said, it's totally reasonable for you to distrust CNN. But other people are going to see different things and weigh the evidence differently

As we noted, they're a declining number; but sure, some people do still like that kind of thing. No one's disputed that.

 

[Rion]

And if a frog had wings...

Why bring up weird hypothetical situations like this rather than discuss the actual facts here in reality?

...that's what was in the article?

"Sources say Comey had reached no conclusion about the President's intent before he was fired."

Maybe you should try complaining to CNN for their tabloid trash, if you have an issue here.

 

[Rion]

So your solution to anonymous sources is to get rid of anonymity. Brilliant. Nixon would love you.

Nice bait, mate.

Saying Comey was humiliated and made to look like a moron is a pretty biased and loaded interpretation of events. It undermines your own credibility on this matter.

...what? That was one of the major complaints about how Trump went about firing Comey, was that it was humiliating and degrading.

Former FBI agents voice anger and humiliation over James Comey firing

 

[AllButNone]

Nice bait, mate.

If you think I misstated your position, by all means say so. And I apologize if that was snippy of me, but ... you're attacking others while offering a non-defense of your position. That does kind of annoy me.

was that it was humiliating and degrading.

....for the FBI as an organization, not Comey personally. There's a difference. By stating Comey himself was utterly humiliated, you're adding additional meaning that just isn't there. (You're doing this with KCfromNC too, in your above post.)

We don't know what Comey himself personally felt or thought. He may very well not have taken it personally, instead seeing it as an attack on the FBI as a part of suppressing investigation. At this point, we just don't know. Personally, I don't think he was made to look like a moron, given the context of the situation. Whether or not he was personally humiliated, I can't read his mind.

 

[Rion]

If you think I misstated your position, by all means say so. And I apologize if that was snippy of me, but ... you're attacking others while offering a non-defense of your position. That does kind of annoy me.

...where am I attacking others? I'm laughing at the idea that CNN is quoting someone 'familiar with how Comey thinks.' Can you not see how absurd that is?

....for the FBI as an organization, not Comey personally. There's a difference. By stating Comey himself was utterly humiliated, you're adding additional meaning that just isn't there. (You're doing this with KCfromNC too, in your above post.)

We don't know what Comey himself personally felt or thought. He may very well not have taken it personally, instead seeing it as an attack on the FBI as a part of suppressing investigation. At this point, we just don't know. Personally, I don't think he was made to look like a moron, given the context of the situation. Whether or not he was personally humiliated, I can't read his mind.

He was humiliated. Comey found out he was fired by seeing it on CNN as he was giving a statement, and thought it was a joke. I wish I could find the article, but according to people who served on his return flight, he was angry and his wife called him, crying. The way Trump fired him was very petty, and I'm not surprised that Comey's angry, but I think he's going to ruin what was left of his reputation with this nonsense.

As for "Sources say Comey had reached no conclusion about the President's intent before he was fired." Do you think that if he goes before congress and claims that he had not concluded that Trump was attempting to interfere UNTIL after he was fired, that he's going to be anything but eaten alive for he's painted as a bitter, angry man out for retaliation?

 

[AllButNone]

...where am I attacking others? I'm laughing at the idea that CNN is quoting someone 'familiar with how Comey thinks.' Can you not see how absurd that is?

I'll repeat my question. Assuming for a moment the source actually is Comey (and there's some likelihood it is Comey), and Comey had requested anonymity, what do you think CNN should have written? If you can suggest a reasonable alternative...

He was humiliated. Comey found out he was fired by seeing it on CNN as he was giving a statement, and thought it was a joke. I wish I could find the article, but according to people who served on his return flight, he was angry and his wife called him, crying. The way Trump fired him was very petty, and I'm not surprised that Comey's angry, but I think he's going to ruin what was left of his reputation with this nonsense.

It's completely possible Comey did feel humiliated. And honestly, if you'd just left things at that, I probably would have left it alone. But that's not what you wrote. You wrote, "he was utterly humiliated and made to look like a moron", and you stated this was a fact, and then to top it all off, you used the unsubstantiated allegation to impugn his credibility. That's is loaded, to say the least, given Comey has remained mostly silent on the issue. The one thing we do have, Comey's letter in response to his firing, is pretty darned reasonable.

It's also unfair to call this situation nonsense when we're still waiting for a lot of details to be made public.

This, by the way, is what I mean when I say you're attacking others. Whether or not you recognize it, you've been on the offensive through this entire thread, right from post 1. And that's totally fine, but if you're going to go on the offensive, please offer something more than "CNN should say Comey says..."

As for "Sources say Comey had reached no conclusion about the President's intent before he was fired." Do you think that if he goes before congress and claims that he had not concluded that Trump was attempting to interfere UNTIL after he was fired, that he's going to be anything but eaten alive for he's painted as a bitter, angry man out for retaliation?

Of course congress is going to recognize that Comey's thinking has potentially been colored by events. But why do you keep judging events before they've even happened? Let's wait to see what happens at the testimony, rather than speculate.

 

[KCfromNC]

...that's what was in the article?

"Sources say Comey had reached no conclusion about the President's intent before he was fired."

That's nice. What does this have to do with the confession you claimed he made?

 

[KCfromNC]

Former FBI agents voice anger and humiliation over James Comey firing

Interesting how you post a story where one person represents the thoughts and feelings of others as proof of something in the very thread you started to attack CNN for posting a story where one person represents the thoughts and feelings of others as proof of something.