| Nem said: You yourself gave a quote on wich i pointed the "likely" being taken as fact. From your own links i could see at the bottom for example: “It was a test page of insults and rebuttals, a see-what-sticks strategy for a President who finds himself under increasing siege amid multiple investigations and legal battles.” This is an opinion. This is not what was reported as fact. It was someone's opinion on it.
Aka i don't have much patience for chasing ghosts. There is nothing out of the ordinary here. If they were lying in the reporting, i would agree. But they are not. Your site literally points out opinions and says they are not integral. Well, networks don't have a collective voice. Individual people have their voice. This is beyond ridiculous.
“But even [Trump’s upcoming meetings with the leaders of Japan, France Germany and North Korea] are unlikely to divert the President’s mind from the ever-expanding controversies.” Another "unlikely" one. Who is taking these things as fact? Is this what the fake news are? Well, then newsflash! ALL networks and everyone who tries to interpret facts in their own logic is making fake news. Goose chase. Reality is slipping away from people in the US. There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Just people being people and giving their opinion. As it happens, they are prone to being disagreeable. Bring me proof that CNN has lied in reporting the facts, not their interpretation and you will have my support. What they think about it? That's not news, it's conjecture. What happened? That's news. Make your choice on wich channel you watch, or just don't watch until the reporting of the facts is over and they move to commentary. |
Reports should be without opinions unless those articles are labeled under the "Opinion" or "Editorial" sections. That is what honest journalism should be. The first quote you mentioned is CNN playing mind-reader. That's not a factual assessment. The same applies with the second quote. "Unlikely" is a qualifier and even worse, CNN does not go out of its way to explain why.
If you want to prove that CNN's article is an opinion piece, then you need to provide the proof. The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. Here, I will help you out. This is the link to CNN's Political Op-Eds page. The article that The Knife Media cited is titled "Trump unloads Twitter fusillade as Comey interview nears". Now CTRL + F that title. That article was published on April 15, 2018. The oldest article in the Political Op-Eds page was published on January 8, 2015 so I'm not manipulating the search results. Let me know if you get a hit. What you describe as a "wild goose chase", I managed to find the referenced article and the Op-Ed page within a minute. Pure hyperbole on your part and I would say you just don't want to put in the effort to verify.
In response to "Bring me proof that CNN has lied in reporting the facts", I never claimed that CNN lied in reporting the facts. Bad reporting extends beyond dishonesty as I already made that clear earlier in the conversation. In The Knife Media's article about Elon Musk, they mentioned how they rate each outlet:
"There are four parts to The Knife’s ratings — spin (the amount of subjective and dramatic language in an article), slant (how much an article supports a single viewpoint), logic (the amount of faulty reasoning in an article), and data (inaccuracies and missing information). Below we’ll examine how spin, slant and faulty reasoning contributed to the overall objectivity ratings for these outlets."
And you should have already known this just from reading from the other article I shared already as well as pointing to their YouTube channel. However, you seem to be more content in shooting down a strawman and argue in bad faith. Your response was ultimately well within my calculations. Anyways, let me know what you go on your CTRL + F search. If anyone else wants to verify, feel free.
