Just wondering: Why is CNN held as a credible source?

[ndee]

Don't take it as an attack on the USA, but why does CNN(Major Newssite) count as credible source? Isn't it kinda censored by the Pentagon? Really just wondering, cuz sometimes, I just can't believe what they say. My statement about the whole war news coverage: Every source is biased.

 

[seawolf21]

I don't think CNN or any US news organization is a credible source. Showing footage of a bomb closing in on a target does not portray the grim realities of war. You really have to go to different articles from different sites to get a more "real" version of what's happening.

 

[ToBeMe]

No media source is "credible" completely.........................they all cater to their audience and sponsers be it businesses or governments.....................from my travels abroad via USMC and through business, my opinion is media is slanted no matter where you are.

 

[Bleep]

no one knows what is happening. Every newscaster has their little spin on things, that is only human nature. Although some statements from some newscasters come from not being very well informed. mostly they read what others have put in front of them. It appers to me that it is going the way of all wars, miscalculation, not good enough intellegence and overconfidence with the leaders. This aside it seems the war is going pretty good for us and our allies.
As in life so goes the military, mistakes are overcome with good thinking and learning from our mistakes

Bless our military Democrats and Republicians alike.

Bleep

 

[flexy]

it's not about credibility....but (imho) it's about balance !

I am kinda unhappy i dont have BBC here in the us...from when i lived in EU i always thought that BBC had the best and quite balanced news coverage, and now i am 'stuck' with cnn/msnbc whatsoever.

 

[HappyNic]

I find CNN to be very is biased as well, they tend to assume too many things, but it's how they assume that gets to me,, it's always mostly someone elses fault before the US. I still check out CNN along with lots of other sources and always keep a open mind.

 

[aswedc]

I find CNN to be very is biased as well, they tend to assume too many things, but it's how they assume that gets to me,, it's always mostly someone elses fault before the US. I still check out CNN along with lots of other sources and always keep a open mind.

I think CNN is still the least biased among the US news networks as far as pro US reporting. A couple examples just from tonight, they just ran a piece questioning why the Pentagon is refusing to allow the media to cover the return of US casualties like the British do and brought up the issue of how it might be to keep public opinon from turning against the war. They addressed how Middle Eastern networks may see the government showing video of opressed Iraqis at press conferences as propaganda, in additon to running a segment later tonight with a reporter who was kicked out of Iraq for violating Pentagon policies for embedded journalists. FOX and MSNBC barely even touch anything that criticizes how the US is running the war.

 

[ElFenix]

cnn has wesley clark and he actually knows wtf hes talking about, unlike other stations

 

[Alistar7]

I see most anything that can be verified on there, you can use the BBC website if you like their slant though.

American media are not all cheerleaders, and there are enough independent sources to get the full picture.

 

[ElFenix]

well right now its kinda stupid... their guy in qatar thinks theres a difference between the "heart" and the "center" of baghdad

 

[tcsenter]

Don't take it as an attack on the USA, but why does CNN(Major Newssite) count as credible source? Isn't it kinda censored by the Pentagon? Really just wondering, cuz sometimes, I just can't believe what they say. My statement about the whole war news coverage: Every source is biased.

Why doesn't CNN count as credible insofar as news media goes? Only the embedded reporters are censored WRT things like locations and troop movements. They're not bound forever by these terms, once the sensitivity of the information has passed, or they're no longer with these military units, they can report all they want about their experiences. CNN doesn't rely soley upon embedded journalists.

No news agency gets it right all the time, but some get it right a whole lot more than others. Credible doesn't mean perfect or above reproach. I think your standard for 'credibility' is flawed because it seems to imply perfection, and by that standard, no sources of information are credible, which is a bit irrational.

 

[m0ti]

I don't think CNN is credible at all; too much sensationalism IMO.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Problem is not credibility, at least as far as presenting demonstrable facts, but bias.

Take Fox. The vast majority of what they present is true, but what is covered and how presented makes their objectivity suspect. Thats why I like the BBC better. More likely to get the facts, but from a broader perspective.

 

[gtd2000]

I normally never watch CNN due to the boring repetition of news coverage - I often joke that CNN stands for Censored News Network.

Having watched the coverage of the first Gulf War in the UK, I do find the US networks have a more biased and resticted view of the war and reporting of it in general. This also pertains to coverage of the 9/11 atrocity.

You should seek varied sources for coverage to try to get a balanced view of recent events. Of course all of them tend to be biased/slanted towards their own needs.