Talk:CNN controversies

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Television Mid‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Media Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Media To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite
NPOV : Content (media and publishing)
Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper
Other :
- Answer requests for comments

Journalism Mid‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Television Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

On 20 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to CNN criticisms and controversies. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

How come my edit was reverted?

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This comment, along with this invective and this final straw show OP had no intent on collegial debate, and they've been blocked. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am deeply disappointed in how Wikibias (described Tucker Carlson just yesterday) undid my edit. I tried to establish a fair point of view for both dems and reps. Let's take a look at CNN controversies, Wikipedia somehow reverts my edit that seeks to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. However, it was removed here. How come Wikipedia considered CNN, MSNBC, CBS, PBS, etc. as reliable news but not Fox News (WP:FOXNEWS)?

Now take a look at Fox News controversies where THIS is found upon entry: "Fox News has been described by academics, media figures, political figures, and watchdog groups as being biased in favor of the Republican Party in its news coverage,[1][2][3][4] as perpetuating conservative bias,[5] and as misleading their audience in relation to science, notably climate change.[6][7][8][9]".

How come my edit was taken down, but the above statement wasn't? WP is "neutral"? Tucker Carlson is correct, WP lost it's credibility as a reliable source a long time ago, even Larry Sanger says the same. RepublicanJones1952 (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)RepublicanJones1952Reply

I think you may run into a problem convincing people that the New York Post is now a reliable source. Even if it is, the source doesn't really discuss CNN's reputation as far as I can tell. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

You should check out WP:NPOV. I am disappointed in how Fox News controversies mentions from the beginning about Fox News displaying bias. I wanted to do the same for CNN, it is an indisputable fact that CNN has and probably always will be left-wing. That being said, how come for CNN, Wikipedia does not state it is a left-wing source as the opening but have no problem doing so for Fox News by saying they're a conservative network? RepublicanJones1952 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Because a consensus of reliable sources does not so describe it. Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Disputes involving CNN Brazil

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to quote here a remarkable case of controversy involving the journalist Alexandre Garcia (journalist). During his participation in the panel "Liberdade de Opinião", where he defended ineffective medicines against COVID-19. Can I add it here or do I need to put it on another page? André L P Souza (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

What is the source for this? ValarianB (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Nick Sandmann

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Are there no liberal, I mean "reliable" sources that show CNN paid him an undisclosed amount for defamation? Is defaming someone not controversial? 2600:387:A:982:0:0:0:64 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

There are actually reliable sources that cover the settlement:[1][2][3][4] The article from Washington Post also mentions a previous settlement CNN made with Richard Jewell. I think a section on settlements would be fine; the sister article BBC controversies mentions similar issues.LM2000 (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I support an addition on this. SmolBrane (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've added it to the article. X-Editor (talk) 01:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 20 December 2024

Latest comment: 9 hours ago9 comments7 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

– These pages include criticisms as well as controversies. WP:CONSISTENT with Category:Fox News criticisms and controversies and MSNBC criticisms and controversies. See also Talk:MSNBC controversies#Requested move 14 December 2024. Theparties (talk) 16:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support. We should do it for other similar articles in this category, for consistency and logic. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment See Talk:Controversies of Nestlé#Requested move 21 December 2024. Theparties (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Concision, basically. I don't find "we did this elsewhere" arguments persuasive on their own. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose I think "criticism" is too broad and out of scope for these articles. CNN and FNC both receive incessant criticism from opposing sides of the political spectrum. That's not the purpose of these articles, which detail specific controversies throughout their history.LM2000 (talk) 07:49, 23 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose as per above. Additionally this broadens the scope of the article too much, and opens the door for pervasive non-encyclopedic editing. TiggerJay (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment - it is also worth noting that the nominator has been blocked for disruptive editing, especially in regards to requested moves. TiggerJay (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Oppose - Not a convincing rationale. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic