I'm not quite sure what exactly you're referring to here. If you can clarify, I'll gladly respond.

When did they lie to my face? Are you referencing their retracted Russia story? They got a story wrong. It happens. They retracted and fired people. This is a great example of the media being held accountable. CNN certainly takes a credibility hit for it.

Per the bolded. This is incorrect. 

The "guy that they went after", was exactly the guy that they described in their report. From the report:

"Reddit user "HanA**holeSolo" first shared the GIF last Wednesday of Trump pummeling a wrestler with CNN's logo imposed on his face. CNN could find no earlier instance of the GIF. The GIF was later edited into a video with sound and tweeted by the President on Sunday.

The redditor they did a story on was the guy who posted a gif, and then took credit once Trump posted a simmilar thing on Twitter. That is very clear from the opening paragraphs of the CNN story.

More like you realized how ignorant your entire premise was and so now you're trying to weasel out of it by ignoring all the main points.  You said I didn't address the topic when even a simpleton could see that you are wrong.  Now, instead of even getting near that point, you're making up meaningless insults like a child.  It's clear you know how vapid that post was now but won't own up to it.  I'm guessing your next reply will be more of the same.  That's at once both hilarious and pathetic.  

Condemning someone doesn't mean and being reserved about it afterwards doesn't mean they tolerate it. Stop projecting.

What is your point really? Devote every single damn second of your life and create more drama?

Also no, you're not crying about violence. You're crying about some stupid gif someone made that depicts "violence" but has absolutely no meaning.

Anyway you say you have not watched TV? You also haven't played games? There's a huge intersecting demograph for TV/Cinema and Games these days. Why are you here in VGC then if you have no idea of all of these?

At this point you can't really brush this off as your really full of it.

Oh and thanks for caring about my health. I'm not the one sitting too close to the T.V. and lapping up all this drama after all(I'll spell out this part since THIS IS FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING and your mind seems to have failed and taken it literally). I don't care about drama as much as you do so I guess poking fun at people like you who stress yourselves for such petty reasons is good fun. I'm not the one with a huge chip on his shoulder in this conversation anyway. :P

That is an empty meaningless statement without any context.  The violence we see today is from the far far left.  Including violence against a righty pol.

I'm going to assume you said a lot of stuff concerning how upset you are that I would even assume that. But then again, you're the one that started the assumption game. So when you want to apologize for calling me a Trump supporter, I'll actually read what you have to say instead of assuming it's mindless banter.

Hold on, hold on.  Let me get this straight.  So you're going to completely dodge the ignorant things you said in your first post replying to my first post unless I admit I was wrong later on about calling you a Trump supporter after your knee-jerk attack on me for saying that Trump is arrogant?  When I don't even know if you're lying or not?

That's hilarious!  I genuinely laughed.  Keep dodging, it's fun to watch.

So let me get this straight; you're going to continue to act the way you're acting, while also believing I'm going to actually read your post to see what you have to say when you won't even offer a simple "Oh, my bad, I assumed you were a Trump supporter because things"?

Bokay.

This is an incomprehensible sentence. I really tried.

I'm not crying about anything, and I'm not creating any drama. All of my posts have been pretty calm and rational. Not sure where this is coming from.

My points are the following:

We have a president who campaigned and was ushered into office on violent rhetoric, and demonizing press outlets that looked on him with a critical eye. That's bad.

We have a congressional majority who looked the other way on one of their own assualting a member of the press. That's bad.

We have a very ugly corner of the Internet that is producing stuff that makes it all the way up to the oval office. That's bad.

I don't watch TV. I never said I didn't play video games. Not watching TV and playing games are not mutually exclusive. I don't really know what the point of any of this is anyway. You've spent a good deal of time speculating on my TV habbits, or lackthereof. 

Is that really a productive use of time for either of us?

Have you been willingly ignoring this entire event in an attempt to save face for CNN? Here's the COMPLETE rundown.

CNN goes after HanA**holeSolo because he takes credit for it. HOWEVER, as BuzzFeed of all places points out, the original gif on Reddit was 5 seconds long, not 20, and the audio was messed with as well. Therefore, CNN went after him on the grounds that he IS the gif poster and they have the right to expose his personal identity if he didn't apoligize or if he goes back on his word. On that simple premise ALONE, CNN still messed up.

And as for the first part, I was talking about how the alternative media covered CNN fessing up to making fake news for views, not simply because they got the story wrong. When producer Jimmy Carr calls all voters stupid as sh*t, and Van Jones admits Russia is a nothing burger offset, it's not wrong to say they are lying and think less of their base.

That sure was a COMPLETE(LY incorrect) rundown.

CNN "went after" (read, investigated and did a story on) the reddit user who claimed to be the origin of the meme. They said as much in their reporting.

Online anonymity is a nice thing to have, and I'm glad CNN exercised discretion in not publishing his name, but CNN probably does have the right to expose his personal identity no matter what. I am not a lawyer, but reddit users aren't like, protected FBI informants or anything. It's not life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and guarnateed anonymity online. 

Finally, there is no evidence that there was any deal, or any "word", or any other kind of quid pro quo exchange between CNN and the reddit user. Any time you guys imply that, you're affixing your own narrative to the situation. 

I 100% agree that CNN is guilty of extremely poor phrasing, but their clarification makes it clear that there was no deal. They say the phrasing was included to make it clear that there was no deal, and that they weren't publishing his name out of discretion (i.e., no deal). If you have proof that they're lying, I'm all ears. Anything else is just speculation about what is really an extremely unlikely event if you think it all the way through. 

A few things,

1.) Rushing a story to print based on bad info is not "making fake news". It is regretably, something that happens in journalism. It happens a lot less at the most reputable outlets. At less reputable outlets, they fire people for it. At the least reputable outlets, they don't even acknowledge it (more on that in a second). I consider CNN to be in that middle tier. Spin? Sure. Entertainment over information? You bet. Flat out deceit? Nah.

2.) CNN, like most large organizations, is not a giant, monolithic body. As such, a segment producer like Carr, or a talking head like Van Jones, may have a different opinion about what constitutes a story than the reporters pounding the pavement. I work for a large company of over 3,000 employees. There is frequent disagreement about what opportunities are worth pursuing or what risks are worth considering. That's how things work.

3.) Here's the best part. Remember that lowest tier of reputable outlets I mentioned earlier? Project Veritas is one of those extremely low tier outlets. They've been busted multiple times, doctoring video and selectively editing in an attempt to willfully deceive. You may recognize Project Veritas as the outlet who released the Van Jones and Jimmy Carr videos.

Maybe the stuff in the CNN sting videos is accurate. Maybe it's not. Either way, this illustrates my point beautifully. 

Media outlets that are traditionally thought of as left-leaning, (The Times, The Post, NPR, and yes, even CNN) will mess up occasionally. But they are held accountable. 

Alternative outlets such as Breitbart, Fox News, Project Veritas, the Gateway Pundit, or fuck, even the White House, mess up just as much or more. Quite often, they willfully deceive. No one holds them to any kind of standard though.

And that's where we are. It is easy to dismiss all media. It's easy to say that it's all biased and all fake. But just the bit of nuance shows that you have a group of outlets that is held accountable, and plays by a certain set of rules. Then you have other outlets, who play by no rules, and are accountable to no one.

It's plain as day.