First

second

The first SEVEN stories on CNN.com right now are about his tweet to the morning joe co-host. That really says all you need to know about CNN.

Of course the tweet itself also tells you about all you need to know about Trump.

Moderated - Miguel

Everyone knew this at this point. It's just that the mainstream media doesn't want to acknowledge it.

Take Forbes for example.

Oh and Wolf Blitzer is a fucking joke. 1-2 hour segment expanding on another dumb Trump tweet. Just merge with TMZ already for all I care.

I've overused this example already.


But this is still MAINSTREAM NEWS IN A NUTSHELL.

So again. Can anyone tell me again with a straight face that the media isn't lying? And that they don't push agendas and twist facts for their own benefits?

Oh and some of the comments here are textbook extremists. Don't care that this shit is already being blown out and that FAKE NEWS actually exists just because you want the hate on Trump to grow? Moreso some people here openly post that they want people dead. Oh the hilarity. VGC community touching politics is a real fanfare of clowns.

I mean how does this shit get a warning meanwhile I get banned for just calling out someone for pushing SJW agendas on a topic that shouldn't involve politics.

In before I get banned again for criticizing the community. So be it. Omit this if you may mods. :)

I struggle to find how reading more of this thread wouldn't be a waste of time, at least if your post is at all representative of what I can expect.

First, someone [...] who is a normal big time speaker on CNN, is appearently so famous that he/she isn't mentioned by the OP or by you, right now.
However, I should trust you that it's really bad, because producers/speaker are the one that invent the news. I didn't know that.

Second, you talk about three people that were fired (they resigned, but who cares about context), at least two of which (one, oops) were Pulitzer winner.
Now, ignoring the factual errors in your post about journalistic integrity, you also fail to mention that CNN issued a public apology to Scaramucci (because I know how to Google things, thank you very much) saying it didn't meet their editorial standards. An apology he accepted, saying "they did the right thing".
At this stage nobody but the biggest cretins on the web, so obviously that includes Trump, are even criticizing them for it. 

So, your argument boils down to: CNN publishes fake news, and we know this because they said an article didn't meet their standard and they got rid of the journalists involved. Them admitting their fault publicly and apologizing shows they can't be trusted.  Also someone else that was important did a bad thing.

Now, I don't get my news coverage from CNN, but I see what's going on.
You're trying to use a company operating the way it should, by issuing apologies and by hiring people that don't agree with everything on the channel, to try and defend your incompetent failure of a president from something he isn't capable of handling: criticism in general, questioning on Russia in particular. 
There is a solid basis for criticism of mainstream media, but I won't let mine be co-opted by your quest to look less shit.

P.S. I'm humbled that on a thread which has devolved into Trump propaganda and antisemitism appearently I'm priority number one for you.

I can understand that, but 46.1% of the population were still willing to vote for him. He hasn't done anything really drastically contreversial as compared to on the campaign trail (I personally think he was FAR worse in the primaries as compared to now). That being said, everything he has done in office he did promise on the campaign trail. Couple that with the fact that the mainstream media is actually defending its lying and claiming its the victim of Trump in a very similar Kathy Griffin sort of way, I don't possibly see how his numbers went down after November 8th. Me personally, I think it's consistently in that 46-50 range, with SOME spikes when the media decides to destroy its own credibility. It's purely speculation on my end, but unlike the media I'm willing to admit it.

Yea but that was 46.1% of people who voted not the entire population (~60% of eligible USA voters actually voted).  Tons of people are just tired of the two major parties in USA, don't care, etc.  So he might have an approval rating of about 45% of people who voted but I'd bet his overall approval among everyone 18 and up is lower.

BTW, I am basing it off of voting results. My bad on forgetting to mention it. My stance on people who don't vote though is kinda negative. If you don't like him why didn't you vote for someone else etc. And that doesn't even include the local issues on the ballot that will most directly impact your way of living. If you want to be heard in the first place to me you have to get your voice out there, and voting is the best way to do that. That is not implying their voice doesn't matter, but rather to let them know if you don't like it you could have done something about it, but you chose not to. I view it as a sort of karma or consequence for their actions.