Millennials don't watch Bill Maher. Old, angry Democrats watch Maher.

 

You mean old folks that can afford HBO! :lol2:

[/b]

 

Yeah that's it Papa. If you watched CNN cover Clinton and Trump, you would have no idea which one they wanted to win:lol2:

 

I don't know that that is what Papa's point was. Since it was clear that MSNBC was all-in for Hillary and Fox was all-in for Trump, was CNN getting hurt by not going hard enough to the left? As the article suggested, CNN lost because they tried to maintain a shred — a really, tiny thread — of balance.

CNN is probably the most biased network going.

Millennials aren't watching CNN (or any cable news network for that matter). A big base of the democratic party.

You would have to literally pay me to watch any type of channel like this.

So, if CNN's "slanted political views" have them tanking, as stated in the OP - how does that explain the apparent significant gains made by MSNBC and Fox in Post 20? Did they do well because their views aren't slanted?

 

I would say people went to CNN hoping for a moderate viewpoint. If they are just going to be activist then MSNBC is better at that.

All news is biased all humans are biased. The difference today and after this election the media despises this President so much they think it's their duty to bring him down and not just report the news. In the past there was a sense of decorum with the media. Now the media doesn't want to report the news they want to be the news.

 

Jake Tapper who is a left leaning journalist I respect has gone off the deep end a little. He is taking it personally. You can't be a journalist and insert yourself into the story.

 

All 3 cable networks are essentially opinion television at this point. The media distrust was already a big part of the Trump win and instead of looking within they doubled down.

Where is an acceptable place for a Millennial to get news? Asking for a friend.

 

I'll tell them what they need to know. :lol2:

 

Seriously, I think one gets the best perspective by utilizing multiple sources:

BGP - we have great dialogue and debate, then do internet or library research for true facts from multiple sources, and not all conservative or liberal. However, it all starts out with having a pragmatic view of reality. And one gets this either by environment growing up or life experience. I am pretty sure those who threaten to cut off their genitals if "the wall" is built are deficient in this department.

FAKE NEWS CNN Busted Staging a “Satellite Interview” from the Same Parking Lot – TruthFeed

Here's are two broad questions for anyone who wants to answer: What questions are "fair" or "unfair" for the media to ask? What sorts of questions most benefit the public?

Here's are two broad questions for anyone who wants to answer: What questions are "fair" or "unfair" for the media to ask? What sorts of questions most benefit the public?

 

They can ask any questions they want. They just need to stop getting their panties in a wad over it if they don't get an answer they like or an answer at all.

 

I personally don't believe the media provides any benefit to the public. Not as it's operated today at least. All they care about are ratings and the next big "breaking gotcha type story". If they want to benefit the public they need to stop interjecting their own personal biases and opinions into what the ask and write, and simply report what is said or what happens. Their own personal commentary is not needed.

They can ask any questions they want. They just need to stop getting their panties in a wad over it if they don't get an answer they like or an answer at all.

 

I personally don't believe the media provides any benefit to the public. Not as it's operated today at least. All they care about are ratings and the next big "breaking gotcha type story". If they want to benefit the public they need to stop interjecting their own personal biases and opinions into what the ask and write, and simply report what is said or what happens. Their own personal commentary is not needed.

 

How should the media react when they ask a question and get an answer that is contrary to clear indisputable facts?

I love the idea that anyone thinks these companies have any bias besides "get as many people to watch as possible". All positions are subservient to that one and all decisions are made on behalf of that one.

 

The forms that it takes can be very different.

How should the media react when they ask a question and get an answer that is contrary to clear indisputable facts?

 

Publish what was said and move on. IMO, it's not their job to determine what is truth and what isn't. That's for each individual person to do. If I see something reported and it interests me, I dig into it. If it doesn't interest me, I forget all about and couldn't care less if it's true or not.

 

It's not their job to opine on an answer IMO.

Publish what was said and move on. IMO, it's not their job to determine what is truth and what isn't. That's for each individual person to do. If I see something reported and it interests me, I dig into it. If it doesn't interest me, I forget all about and couldn't care less if it's true or not.

 

It's not their job to opine on an answer IMO.

 

You hit on a good point there. There is no media outlet on TV that is all about just reporting the news. They all include more opinion and commentary on the news than just reporting the news. Whatever happened to CNN Headline News?

You hit on a good point there. There is no media outlet on TV that is all about just reporting the news. They all include more opinion and commentary on the news than just reporting the news. Whatever happened to CNN Headline News?

 

Maybe it's hypocritical of me, but I only feel this way when it comes to political news. Way too much emotion and feeling involved IMO for any news organization to be any good unless they simply report and move on.