Can CNN be trusted?

[Arvedui]

After having read opinions here and there in the Forum, I want to ask this question. Also, a friend of mine had a weird experience regarding CNN a few years ago:
He was in i Sarajevo/Bosnia and that particullar sunny, peaceful afternoon, enjoying a beer in one of the bars. Then, some 50 yards away, a CNN van turned up, and the camerecrew got out together with one of the "famous" reporters. Being somewhat curious he watched as they filmed the reporter talking to the camera. Suddenly he noticed the reporter making strange moves, like jerking his/her upper body or head to one side and then the other. This continued until they finished filming and drove away.
Later in the afternoon he watched CNN, and there was one of those "Special Report" headings. There he saw the the story he had witnessed, only on TV the sound of shooting, explotions and ricochettes (sp?) had been added, so that all who where watching got the impression that the reporter was filmed while under fire.

This has made me think that CNN can't be trusted. But do you think I'm wrong?

[Celebthôl]

After hearing this it adds to my belief that the News (any) can't be trusted but it must've bin funny though seeing all that?!

Celeb

[Arvedui]

Well, he's still laughing when he talks about it!

[Asha'man]

Of course they can't be trusted...it's the Clinton News Network, after all. :rolleyes:

Asha'man

[aragil]

Originally posted by Asha'man
Of course they can't be trusted...it's the Clinton News Network, after all. :rolleyes:

Asha'man

???

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

Oh , you MUST go see the movie "Bowling for Columbine". It touches on this and how the American media is so manipulative as to create a mindset for a nation. At one point, 10 camera crews are lined up filming a story in front of the school where a six year old was shot by another six year old. When you see the 'news' presentation, you hear sympathy and indignation and it looks like only the one camera is there. When camera's aren't rolling, you see the film crews goofing around and teasing the news guy about his fly-away hair, and if someone has some hair-spray in their pocket. News people are just as much actors as actors are.

[Arvedui]

The same thing is sort of describes in "The Bonfire of Vanities" as well, but those are books/films. We are talking about the news channel with perhaps the greatest impact on the world here, not fiction.

[DGoeij]

As every news agency, CNN works with deadlines, competitors and a home-country. As a result of that, their 'news' can be as plain wrong or biased as that of any other agency.
I generally do not trust any 'news'. It's usually the 'olds' that are more trustworthy, but that still depends heavily on the 'writer'.

[Wolfshead]

I'd be inclined to say they can't be trusted. I'm of the opinion that every news network except the BBC is biased towards certain aspects of life. So with CNN you can have them creating certain images about other places that aren't neccesarily true, like with the example at the start of this thread. The average man-on-the-street will be none the wiser to these and just think it's a really great news network.

The can also put forth images of governments, say the head of CNN was a strong Republican, you may notice Rupublicans looking better. And other such examples.

Perhaps the BBC also does this, I don't know, I've just grown up watching it and it all seems to be fairly honest and they give comprehensive reports on most things.

Perhaps some of that was slightly nonsensical, but it was done in a rush, the Celtic v Blackburn match is on TV...

[Mindy_O_Lluin]

It's a documentary, non-fiction.

[Legolam]

I'm of the opinion that every news network except the BBC is biased towards certain aspects of life
I'm inclined to agree with this. I think the BBC is the only news broadcaster in the world that isn't commercial so it doesn't have to pull in audiences like CNN does. What sort of reputation does the BBC have across the pond?

Also, the BBC World Service is listened to across the world as a reliable source of information. In the war in Afghanistan, wind up radios tuned to the World Service were dropped in order to give the Afghan people information about what the allies were doing and why. But then maybe that was for propaganda too. Who knows?!

[DGoeij]

We have our own non-commercial news agency here, and like the BBC, the language used indicates neutral points of view, mostly. So at least they are trying to remain unbiased.

[daisy]

I think that the moment any information medium is privately owned you have problems because then they are under the control of the one who owns them - this happened recently in Canada where some newspaper reporters resigned because they would not stick to the mandate prescribed by the newspaper's owner.
I just think about the Gulf War and when Newsweek made O.J.Simpson's face blacker on their cover a few years ago.

[Kiroshar]

All news reports are biased whether they be from CNN, Fox News, BBC, or MSNBC. This is because there is always a point of view. A reporter always only has a backround based on his or her culture, religion, or political viewpoint.

I am sure that the people of India or Egypt in the 1950's would not trust the BBC as being a neutral observer.

When news agencies are under the umbrella of a large corporation, they are even more suspect, because people are hired that generally reflect the views of the corporation.

I have little faith in most of the news we see on TV. Many of the reporters are clueless about what they report, and the pundits are often biased. It makes good TV, but it makes suspect reporting.

By the way, what evidence does this "friend" have of seeing this fake report by CNN? I would think this would have made a great story on any other network if true.

At this point, it is hearsay. It is plausable, but there is no evidence.

[faila]

BBC is ran by theBritish government isnt it?

THat makes it just as biast, its biast towards its own government and the rulling party.

But then i dont really know who its run by, but someone mentioned that it wasnt comercial so i figured that it was ran by the government.

[Snaga]

The BBC is publicly owned, but the government do not have a direct voice in the editorial policy. The BBC has a reputation for being ruthless in investigating governmental wrong-doing. Many ministerial careers have come crashing down as a result of BBC interviews, or investigations turning up evidence that has made their careers unviable.

On the other hand, the government does try to influence the BBC. And every other news organisation that can sway public opinion. People trust the BBC because they own it, and it is reasonably un-biased as far as favouring one party over another. By contrast, most privately owned newspapers reflect the views of their proprietors.

I was in America and CNN were gonna do a show 'German: Friend or Foe?' Someone in CNN is on crack if they seriously think that Germany could be described as a foe of the US.

[Arvedui]

By the way, what evidence does this "friend" have of seeing this fake report by CNN? I would think this would have made a great story on any other network if true.

He wasn't alone. He had two collegues with him. And there are a lot of reasons why they would not want to give it away to another news network.

Sorry. I can't be more spesific.

[faila]

Originally posted by snaga1
The BBC is publicly owned, but the government do not have a direct voice in the editorial policy. The BBC has a reputation for being ruthless in investigating governmental wrong-doing. Many ministerial careers have come crashing down as a result of BBC interviews, or investigations turning up evidence that has made their careers unviable.

On the other hand, the government does try to influence the BBC. And every other news organisation that can sway public opinion. People trust the BBC because they own it, and it is reasonably un-biased as far as favouring one party over another. By contrast, most privately owned newspapers reflect the views of their proprietors.

I was in America and CNN were gonna do a show 'German: Friend or Foe?' Someone in CNN is on crack if they seriously think that Germany could be described as a foe of the US. SOmeoneproblebly was on crack. I could walk out side of my house and walk for like five feet to a drug dealer. (no i dont do drugs) so its very likely that someone was.

Isnt having a People or government ran teleision station news or other wise a form of socialim? It could easily be corrupted into a thing that the government had utter cotrol of. I dont even think their should be such a thing as pbs in america (its pointless).

But back to the subject, I accept no news at face value, i find the most liberal news source possible (cnn) and then the most conservative news source possible (worldnetdaily.com) and in the end compare the two and come up with something inbetween the two.

[Snaga]

Originally posted by faila
SOmeoneproblebly was on crack. I could walk out side of my house and walk for like five feet to a drug dealer. (no i dont do drugs) so its very likely that someone was.

Isnt having a People or government ran teleision station news or other wise a form of socialim? It could easily be corrupted into a thing that the government had utter cotrol of. I dont even think their should be such a thing as pbs in america (its pointless).

But back to the subject, I accept no news at face value, i find the most liberal news source possible (cnn) and then the most conservative news source possible (worldnetdaily.com) and in the end compare the two and come up with something inbetween the two. Gosh you're right! A terrible thing! BBC = publicly owned = socialist = terrible thing.... except it happens to be something we British are rightly proud of, with a reputation for quality and objectivity the world over.

Obviously it MUST be privatised so some Rupert Murdoch type can buy it up, dictate the editorial policy to his own personal agenda, dumb it down and make lots of money out of it. Yeah!:rolleyes:

[Nardil]

I find that most news networks get the facts close to correct. However, it is their interpretation of the facts that varies widely. And of course there are the occasional facts that are left out. The only way to be informed is to get facts from a variey of sources.

[Asha'man]

For a rundown on just how reliable the media in general is (with specific mentions of CNN), read Ann Coulter's book "Slander: Liberal Lies Against the American Right". Excellent book. :D

Ash