Did we watch the same video?

It came from the mouth of the horse itself.

I wouldn't say they're completely lying but they do come to a point where THEY ARE LYING.

The horse itself?  That guy, from what I got of the video, has had no involvement in the story and knows nothing more about the underlying facts than any viewer of CNN.  The only inside knowledge he had was secondhand gossip about "this is our new Malaysian plane story so go cover it to death".  That's not lying in my eyes if the people doing the story don't believe there's nothing to it.  This guy believes there's probably (but not certainly) nothing to it, but he's not involved in the story.  Please define what you mean by lying. 

Yes, i do think this is very important. The president of the USA is a danger to everyone around him, including the rest of the world.

I only know what jerry springer is, so i think you have me beaten on that.

Something very important and very dangerous is going on. The USA has a dangerous lunatic for a president. That is worth hours of debating. It is of the utmost importance for the whole world.

Oh so we discount the fact that they are doing sensationalist yellow journalism just because "some guy" who works at CNN holds a position doesn't seem to have direct contact with whoever is coming up with there stories.

Seems legit.

Well goodluck to you then. I'm not one to lap up such crap. If you think that enabling certain scumbag media outlets for spouting so much nonsense in an already overflowing sea of uncertain information will help us all then I hope you make us proud.

I'm not saying it's good journalism.  What I'm saying is that it can be poor journalism without being lying, or even reporting anything untrue.  If all they do is sensationalize it and give it ten times as much coverage as it needs while ignoring other stories, that's still very bad, but it's not lying and it doesn't make the story false. 

You've ignored my request for you to define what you mean by "I'm not saying they are lying, but they are lying." 

Wow. Way to put words in my mouth. Why not just quote me completely will you? There's a built in function for that or is it THAT hard to use?

Let me do that for you then.

Notice the important word.
"COMPLETELY"
Or is basic comprehenssion not your forte?

Memes won't add anything to your argument. If you're trying to be funny go ahead. I'll simply ignore your post.

Okay.  Fine.  You have "corrected" me.  I ask my question a third time.  What do you mean by "lying"? and what the HECK do you mean by "completely lying"?  (such that it is different from merely "lying")

And lastly, what are all the parts you disagree with in my claims that (1)"it can be poor journalism without being lying, or even (2)reporting anything untrue" and "(3)If all they do is sensationalize it and give it ten times as much coverage as it needs while ignoring other stories, that's still very bad, but (4)it's not lying and (5)it doesn't make the story false"?

You have already been ignoring the arguments in my posts, which amounts to ignoring my posts.  Please either stop doing it, or stop pretending not to. 

Yes I didn't answer all your arguments. Your post was terrible with little to no substance for this conversation You're asking questions that are making this argument totally redundant.

If you don't count their selective footage practice as lying then I don't know what to say anymore. I'm done with this argument as you bring nothing to the table.

I define a "lie" as being when a person presents as truth what they believe is a falsehood.  Leading someone to believe that something is true, without explicitly telling them that it is true, might be lying by that definition.  But that is not what the video evidence presented in the OP shows.  Giving an issue more coverage than it deserves is not lying by that definition.  Giving an issue not enough coverage is not lying by that definition.  Being a total partisan hack does not necessarily involve lying by that definition. 

HOW DO YOU DEFINE LYING, YOU OBSTRUCTIONIST FOOL?