 |
|
|
|
| CNN Is Not "The Most Trusted Name In News" (their Tag-line) Because They Have Been So Biased In How They Have Reported, Shown Photos And Film Of Candidates, Made Fun Of And Overly Criticized One But Not The Opponent |
| I totally regret how CNN which was once 'the most trusted name in news" has let their coverage of the campaign be so extremely unbalanced. They do not show equally good and bad film of opposing candidates, give equal time to both, select equally balanced types of quotes, have talking heads (pundits) of balanced numbers NOR of balance between male and female, have equal amount of 'humor, balance of 'trivial criticisms' (ie: Hillary's clothing, hair, laugh, voice, wonderful tears), 'and worst: Gave Obama 15 minutes prime time speech against Hillary on super Tuesday night. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CNN certainly is not the most trusted name in news. This is simply their motto, but I think that if
we question the mottos of most businesses and consider them to be little more than advertising
ploys, then we should also treat CNN's claim with a very large grain of salt
CNN has never been the most trusted name in news. I think that the BBC does a far better job of
presenting current events in an intelligent and thoughtful manner, while CNN is more prone to
sensational, catchy headlines. The BBC is also better at providing context and background than
CNN.
When it comes to the coverage of Obama's campaign, CNN is just like most other US media outlets--it
seems to have an inexplicable preference for him. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21 Feb 2008 10:41
Sign In
