CNN vs Trump: Point, Counterpoint

On Saturday Trump blasted CNN in a Tweet. CNN responded. It's all rather amusing.

Trump to CNN

CNN to Trump

Mish to CNN

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

"95%+ on CNN are simple news stories like "Volcano erupts on Bali" Are all those stories fake?"

I don't think Don Lemon does stories on volcanoes in Bali.

CNN, Fox, et. al. are not "news" organizations. They are private broadcasting organizations that use a news format to maximize sales of advertisements. Their objective is to maximize the number of viewers to create the highest price potential for advertising sales. Their purpose is to maximize shareholder value by minimizing costs and maximizing revenues. To achieve these ends, they seek attractive but not necessarily competent reporters, they focus on easy to find stories, and they maximize the entertainment value of those stories by providing the most outlandish spin possible. None of it is really news. All of it is fake. Arguing about it ridiculous.

"Earth is round, earth is flat, all depends on the beholder." No. 1+1 always =2. CNN is a propaganda operation. They tell the viewer what they want the viewer to see and hear. Fortunately, we do have the internet and can seek out what is being hidden or falsified.

the whole fake news meme is repugnant. its far more subtle than that. the major news outlets have editors and verify sources. what the live at five crew or sean hannity does is not news.

@Sechel

First of all - it doesn't matter what you call him - the president is still just a person. And as a person he has the right to complain on social media...just like everyone else.

Secondly:

You can't believe any news outlet on any story that hasn't been thoroughly "vetted" by publication and "verification" by many outlets - and even then there is a chance it's still not true.

Every single one of them has been caught lying about sources, lying about stories, not reporting the whole story...etc. The examples are legion.

And this is nothing new. It happened even in colonial times. Papers of the day slanted their stories and editorial content to beliefs they wanted to push - even if that meant stretching the truth at times.

Newspapers, TV news, 24/7 "news" stations - all media outlets - exist for one thing: Make money for their advertisers - which makes the advertisers continue to buy ads - which makes money for the media conglomerate that owns the media outlet.

To believe anything else is to believe in something that has never existed.

@JonSellers

Exactly!

If only 95% of what a news service reports is true, that's a tragically low percentage. The goal should be more like 99.99% accuracy. I find myself wondering, though, is there more "fake news" reported these days than 50 years ago, or is it just that, because of alternative ways for information to flow, we are more aware of it? Or, is it that, with all the alternative sources of information, false propaganda spreads more readily, and we are more confused?

Myself, I believe that, because of all the alternative ways for information to spread, reporters now feel less need to be objective, so they freely hand pick what facts they present to slant their stories. That has has long existed (see, e.g. "60 Minutes", which was doing that long ago), but it seems more prevalent today, especially when applied to main stream news.

there are more ads advertizing CNN on CNN than their are ads avertizing products and services. thi sis symptomatic of the ethos lying (sic) behind CNN reporting internationally. the brand has lost all the prestige gained from its 1991 coverage of the middle east - even that reporting is now seen as glorifying a lie that caused the death of millions using trillions of tax payer dollars over the last 25 years.