[mullingitover]

> It is presented to the user the same way every other news piece is, just with the word "Analysis" tacked on in the corner.

The word 'Analysis' is right there in the title on their web site, it's not confusing in the slightest to a reasonable person imho.

[dahfizz]

The word 'Analysis' appears once, under the title (not in it), in a much smaller and greyed out font. Very few people would notice it, IMHO.

And even if they did, I don't see how that changes anything. This is CNN's analysis of the news, and it has all the problems I outlined in my original comment. This is not disclaimed as the author's own opinion, it is CNN's explanation of the news, and it is filled with subjectivity and inflammatory content.

You would have to be incredibly dishonest with yourself to read that article and not conclude that CNN is biased against Trump.

And I reiterate: I don't think bias in media is inherently bad. But it is foolish to think that private media corporations are unbiased, altruistic arbiters of the complete and objective truth. This is the point I am making, but I suspect you would rather continue to nitpick the examples I have chosen rather than engage in a good faith discussion.

[mullingitover]

I went to https://www.cnn.com/politics and the article title is right there: "Analysis: Trump takes his war on masks to new lows." The "Analysis" is even in bold font.

> You would have to be incredibly dishonest with yourself to read that article and not conclude that CNN is biased against Trump.

I read it as a non-values neutral piece, and that is not a slant against Trump so much as it's a stance against a pattern of behavior with harmful ramifications for the country's public health. Do you think there's a neutral ground between recklessly endangering public health for political gain versus not doing that?

> But it is foolish to think that private media corporations are unbiased, altruistic arbiters of the complete and objective truth.

I don't know who you're arguing with on this point.