[_heimdall]

Its particularly comical because many of the recommendations, including from the US government, for identifying fake or untrustworthy news sites include factors that would indicate CNN's site is fake.

A hard one to define is a common recommendation is that a legit news site will look and feel professional. A more specific one is that a fake news site will be filled with a large number of ads. That doesn't even touch on the other factors like unbiased articles that share both sides of an issue.

[GiorgioG]

Let's be real, CNN, Fox News, etc are all fake/propaganda. On Fox News, Trump can do nothing wrong, Biden can do nothing right. On CNN it's nothing but sunshine and rainbows for Harris/Biden and the opposite for Trump...I mean look at this story title from CNN's current frontpage: "Roy Wood Jr. reacts to Trump’s ongoing McDonalds remarks"

I'm an independent and as far as I can tell there is zero attempt at unbiased factual reporting of the news.

[Mathnerd314]

> unbiased factual reporting

I don't think that has ever existed, but the closest I've found is Wikipedia. It is surprisingly detailed, particularly on current events.

[basil-rash]

For mainstream folks, perhaps. The second you even go slightly outside of what the media has declared kosher it goes off the rails. Take RFK’s page, for instance, which is just a collection of inflamed opinions soured from “reputable“ news outlets.

[3np]

It can get polarized within the mainstream, too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_U.S._executive_br...

[internetter]

In your opinion, what is some misinformation on RFK's page?

Have you read the discussions on the talk page?

If your concern has not been extensively discussed, have you raised it on said page?

Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr.

[basil-rash]

Yes, the top chain in the talk page is exactly what I’m referring. And, as expected, the fair critique of the article for violating wiki guidelines has been shot down by passionate editors who want to push their narrative.

[notsureifsrs]

I'm confused. All I saw was someone trying to push their own agenda, and editors preventing it. Did you see something else?

[qnleigh]

Funny you mention that. I've been experimenting with reading only Wikipedia as my source for news. I agree it seems to be an excellent source.

What I can't figure out is how it seems to still be so neutral, given that it's completely open for anyone to edit. Seems like it would be quite cheap for an organization to edit things to their liking.

Is it simply that most people don't get their news from Wikipedia, and so it's not a primary target for manipulation? Is it already awash in self-serving content and I just haven't noticed?

[Viliam1234]

You might enjoy this story: https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wik...

The short version is that you can make Wikipedia report the way you want, but you need to be strategic about it. Wikipedia reports information from "reliable sources", so instead of editing the information directly, you need to insist that the sources that agree with you are reliable and the sources that don't agree with you are unreliable. If you succeed at this, then getting the information you want into Wikipedia is just straightforward following of Wikipedia's written policy.

[moi2388]

You find? I usually find it more and more edited to favour left-wing and work views on current and political events.

I just go to severs social media sites so I get at least both biases

[internetter]

Wikipedia is free for everyone to edit. The policies are strongly aligned with the pursuit of truth. Both parties can have truths in their favour, if editors are in a left wing bubble they may just be more exposed to truths from a left perspective. Here's where you can help! If you identify bias, feel free to remove charged language, and add new ideas with reliable citations. Here's a list of sources considered reliable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AReliable_sources%2...

Extensive discussions of the decision making process for each source is documented in this list.

[moi2388]

Well, I try, but I’m never allowed to edit anything, even though I add sources, so no idea what’s happening there.

[notsureifsrs]

There's always Conservapedia if Wikipedia isn't working for you!

[InvisibleUp]

You might have some luck with news wire services such as Reuters or the Associated Press.

[Der_Einzige]

You massively overstate the political bias that CNN has. I can find articles that are critical of Biden/harris all day on CNN!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13868889/cnn-attack...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/14/politics/fact-check-harris-ca...

But please, keep lying about how CNN doesn’t criticize Harris/biden! It fits into the destabilizing narrative that “the media” is “corrupt” or “bought and paid for”.

Also, if you want unbiased media, CSPAN is that. No bias except from how the camera is physically pointed into congress. You won’t watch it because it’s too boring and despite all the hatred your profess to have against biased news, the idea of news not as entertainment is alien to you.

[_heimdall]

Arguing that news outlets have a bias does not mean they are 100% biased. You will find examples of articles and segments against Harris on CNN, you will also find articles and segments against Trump on Fox News. It isn't the norm though.

The most telling for me is generally the photos picked by a news outlet. On CNN for example, photos of Harris (and Biden) are almost always picked to show them in a favorable light. They'll be shot standing at a podium with an American flag behind them and a big, natural looking smile on their face. Photos of Trump are from off angles with an angry look on his face, often taken mid speech where a face will look more contorted than when smiling.

Are news outlets 100% biased mouthpieces pieces? Of course not. But they have a strong bias towards one party or the other and they don't try very hard to hide it.

[Der_Einzige]

Saying stuff this obvious to debunk it's like AI skeptics saying "AI can't solve X" when it's literally trivial to try their query and then the AI system straight up just solves it.

Let's look at some recent CNN photos of each of them!

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240921-po...

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/2024-09-26t...

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/gettyimages...

https://media.cnn.com/api/v1/images/stellar/prod/20240721-02...

(sources)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/cnn-poll-harris-trum...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/27/politics/harris-southern-bord...

https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/29/media/abc-presidential-debate...

[_heimdall]

Two issues with you trying to debunk me here.

First, part of my claim is that you absolutely can find examples where CNN puts Harris or Biden in a bad light. To properly debunk me you would need an analysis of how frequently they show either party candidate in a good vs. bad light.

Second, and more importantly, you're trying to debunk what I clearly stated as my experience of viewing CNN. I didn't claim it to be a universal truth, only a pattern I have noticed when I have taken the time to browse CNN's site.

Debunking is useful when someone is proposing an argument as a scientific, or logically based, argument. Its pretty useless when the statement is only based on personal, anecdotal experience.

[sutra_on]

Are you saying that if I don't enjoy watching live video of e.g. an anthill 24/7 then I am actually not interested in unbiased media and crave drivel like CNN? That's... one way to reason I guess.

[Der_Einzige]

The better analogy would be "If I don't enjoy watching a live video of an anthill 24/7 than I am actually not interested in studying or learning about ants".

To which my response is "those who don't do, teach" and to point you to in-fact, do your ant observational studies anyway (i.e. watch CSPAN) because it really, really is the only way to stop seeing quite as many shadows on the wall and see a tiny glimpse of how politics actually works.

Seriously, most of the folks making real discovery today in some animal studies field is doing it from long periods of observational studies in the field. Books from academics are so full of lies due to publish or perish, academic careerism, widespread, systemic, structural, and at the highest levels academic fraud/dishonesty, and more.

Watch CSPAN, or you will be lied to. Sorry not sorry that it's boring as shit. That's the reality of politics, it's mostly boring.

[SoftTalker]

I am so glad I decided to tune out of this election cycle. Is anyone really undecided? If you're not, just don't watch. I have no idea what Trump is saying about McDonald's and I like it that way.

[kspacewalk2]

Elections are all about turnout. Hence, election campaigns mostly aren't about convincing the undecided. They're mostly about motivating and energizing your voters to show up on election day (get out the vote!), and demoralizing and confusing the other side's voters to stay home (you're principled, but your candidate is un-yoursidesian and cannot be trusted).

[SoftTalker]

I'm going to vote, as I always do. I don't need manufactured outrage as a motivator. Unfortunately that is what ad-driven social media and news needs to get eyeballs, so it's all we've got.

[d0gsg0w00f]

I'll sum it up for you:

"Vote for the person we picked for you because they're not Trump."

[smrtinsert]

False equivalence. One of those had to pay 700 million because it doesn't know how to stop lying.

[notsureifsrs]

Don't... don't come to HN for reasonable conversation about these things.

[tootie]

I know it's fun to hate on media but CNN is actually really solid. I watch the broadcast rarely but I visit the site. They have enormous breadth of coverage that includes international news as well as fluff like celebrity gossip. They have a ton of real reporters and are on the ground everywhere something is happening. I see sensationalized stuff sometimes but they're still highly factual and fair. I'm not sure what people think the alternative is. We wouldn't know anything if not for commercially successful news businesses. None of the Internet media critics actually gather any news for themselves

[silexia]

X.com is the only reliable source of news now as people from all political views do independent reporting there and Community Notes fact checks them.

[_heimdall]

I was never much of a Twitter user, but I have a really hard time believing that any social network incentivizing short comments and social validation through likes/shares and an algorithmic feed will ever be a reliable source for unbiased views.

[kube-system]

That site is, and always has been, full of hot takes and sensationalism which are often out-of-context or misleading. Regardless of viewpoint. And most evidence shows it is a top target for intentional disinformation attacks by institutionally-sponsored troll farms. It is very easy for people to end way down the rabbit holes of an echo chamber on that site and find themselves exposed to niche accounts that don't receive any fact checking or counterarguments.