CNN Scandals Obliterate Viewership

>>155356
It's my hope that I will get to watch CNNs collapse within my lifetime

Fucking lul.

Get rekt, /news/.

>breitbart

>>155368
Factual news is factual

>>155356
If you actually follow breitbart you should drink bleach

>breitbart

Not /news/. Try posting a neutral source.

>significant hit in its primetime ratings
>some trump voters who never watched CNN in the first place got slightly more butthurt that they shut up an antisemite by threatening to call him by his name

does anyone other than old people watch cable news anymore?

>>155379
a handful of people in every airport

>>155376
>>Better track record than the MSM to date. If you don't like the stories they run then that's your deal.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/03/donald-trump/trumps-pants-fire-claim-cnn-ratings-are-way-down/

CNN ratings for this time of year are at a 5 year high. Crazy what you learn when you arent a fucking shill.

>>155381
they arent even stories you stupid fuck

>>155383
"As firstreported by The Federalist, cable ratings for June 26 — July 2 show that while Fox and MSNBC occupy the first and second slots for ratings 8 p.m. – 11 p.m., CNN is in 13th place."

CNN is hitting a low point because of scandal. You're not looking at the correct data.

>>155385
>Covfefe
>2scoops
>Handshakes

Gee wiz, does it smell bad when your head is so far up your ass?

>>155388
"CNN just posted its most-watched second quarter in history"

You really are pathetic my man. I don't even give a shit about cnn but goddamn youre stupid.

>>155392
You are arguing quarterly averages whereas >>155388 is arguing about weekly ratings during a scandal. Stop comparing apples to oranges.

>>155392
>CNN takes immidiate drop in ratings in the last week (monthly/weekly)

>Quotes yearly rating jump like a dumbass (yearly/quarterly)

>"I don't even like CNN but I'm going to defend them on an obscure online thread against the unintelligent plebians for fun"

Hello ShareBlue, always easy to spot

>>155359
how is /news/ getting rekt?

>>155394
Oh I see well if someone wants me to read about their ratings for just last week they would have to post an actual news source first.

>>155395
What's it like crying ShareBlue every time you're proven wrong? No matter how inconsequential the issue, it can't be easy.

>>155403
But you were actually the one proven wrong..

>>155399
http://thefederalist.com/2017/07/06/ratings-collapse-cnn-now-losing-nick-nite-prime-time-ratings-war/

They source the actual ratings, looks like Breitbart was accurate

>>155356

>breitbart

Literally fake news.

http://www.snopes.com/tag/breitbart/

>>155407
>Snopes
Cringe

>>155408

http://www.snopes.com/info/notes/politics.asp

>>155413
What gives snopes the credentials to make any claims worth note

>>155414

Their articles, for one.

>>155406
It isnt compared to what happened this week last year so its totally meaningless and out of context. Trump has been lying about CNNs ratings for months so for all I know this is the first week since he took office that their ratings dropped at all because I'm sure theyve been closely watching the ratings to publish this dumbass article ass soon as they could.

>>155415
Why, who writes them and under what authority does he have saintly lack of bias

>>155418

Are you asking if the author of articles has the authority to do so or are they biased?

>>155417
It's essentially just made for retards like OP to say "Yay we did it reddit!"

>>155421
Both I suppose. I see that they're also used by CNN, NyTimes, the Las Angeles Times, and the Washington Post. That's pretty telling I think.

>>155423

If your articles continually hold weight to scrutiny I personally don't care if the author is a super intelligent toddler or a sentient corpse.

Let's clarify what sort of bias you're asking? Are you asking about bias in what they choose to scrutinize or bias within articles themselves?

>>155424
Lol is there a snopes for snopes? Sounds like just some guy and his team in Florida making a living off of reviewing articles for ad revenue

>>155424
>Snopes
>Holding weight
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers

>>155424
>If your articles continually hold weight to scrutiny I personally don't care if the author is a super intelligent toddler or a sentient corpse
>snopes says these newspapers tell the truth
>his do we know snopes is telling the truth?
>why, these newspapers say so

Reminder that snopes is run by two liberal dingbats who live in a basement with their cats.

>>155430
We're never going to get anywhere if there's no significant coincidence between the sources both sides trust.

Some folks know they don't have particularly strong arguments so to compensate they keep every opposition claim under question by maintaining two separate and isolated universes of information.

This is justice, about time. I don't care if its about Trump or not. I'm tired of being fed bullshit, from CNN, Fox News, etc. Just give the News, and give me current events. These companies need to stop all this shock news and causing controversy. CNN and Fox News are the reason this country is going to shit. They literally fuel controversy and people are finally seeing the bullshit for what it is. I hope they get a hefty fine for it.

>>155436
Honestly think the 24hr news cycles needs to be reverted to the morning, noon, evening showings. Give news crews time to check their sources and stop spewing BS

>>155427
>>155429
>Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

>It was with incredible surprise therefore that I received David’s one-sentence response which read in its entirety “I'd be happy to speak with you, but I can only address some aspects in general because I'm precluded by the terms of a binding settlement agreement from discussing details of my divorce."

So he had a legal obligation to not reveal shit relating to his divorce.

>It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world...

Yeah, this is a sure sign this is an opinion piece. This entire piece is telling the reader what to think.

I also like this segment:

>we simply have to trust that the site’s views on what constitutes neutrality are the same as ours.

Doesn't Snope's provide sources in all its articles?

>>155424
>If your articles continually hold weight to scrutiny
You mean hold up to scutiny and thats exactly what anon lamented. Snopes is a joke and as credible as the outlets citing them like cnn.

>>155443
>So he had a legal obligation to not reveal shit relating to his divorce.
Yes, which is another way Snopes is compromised when it comes to credibility because it's practices are completely hidden by this
>Yeah, this is a sure sign this is an opinion piece. This entire piece is telling the reader what to think.
Not an argument
>Doesn't Snope's provide sources in all its articles?
Breitbart sources a lot of its articles as well, my man

>>155413
Anyone who uses snopes or any other fact check site, ugh

>>155455
Except the Forbes article doesn't indicate anything like that.

>>155455
>Yes, which is another way Snopes is compromised when it comes to credibility because it's practices are completely hidden by this

If you think this is the equivalent of rebuffing all attempts to fact-check the fact checker is other worldly thinking and I'd like to go to the dimension of reality that you exist in.

>Not an argument

Well some people wouldn't even bother to waste my time with it if they realized it was an editorial hamfisted with adjectives, the notion that popular opinion is correct, leading innuendo questions, and rhetoric instead of actually rebuffing Snopes. I'm surprised Forbes even let them post this on their website.

>Breitbart sources a lot of its articles as well, my man

Key word is "a lot". Literally every Snopes article is jam packed with sources.

>>155600

NOTHING. You people have NOTHING.

Get the fuck out of here and stop wasting my time.

>>155383
>politifact

>>155619
Politifact, Snopes, MediaBiasCheck, etc. have zero credibility. They're run by small teams of for profit ad revenue jockeys.

Snopes in particular is run by David Mickelson (recently divorced I believe), a liberal journalist and self avowed "neutral article fact checker". He and Kim Lacapria, former writer for the Inquisitor, litterally just use the internet to research the varacity of stories. They notably explain away critisizm and scandal for the left, and give the right the ole one two what for every chance they get.

A common thing they do is take a wild misquote or off the cuff statement from a conservative and run it under a microscope. For instance, if a right wing politician says "crime rates are skyrocketing in Chicago" they might increduously say "actually, crime is at an ten year low - fake!" Without noting that the crime has dramatically risen in a smaller window. It's a common smoke a mirrors tactic used by rhetoriticians.

All said and done, these sites are disingenuous when they claim neutrality. It's even more suspicious when notably left wing sites use them as some sort of "see I told you so" source. Propoganda? Maybe.

>compares CNN to other news outlets
>look! They're not first so it means their ratings are way down thanks to our shitposts!
>but what if you compare CNN to CNN?
>SHUT UP YOU FAKE NEWS FAGGOT CNN SUCKS
>but if you look at the data, they're actually having their highest ratings ever
>LALALALALAL I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU

>>155631
>CNN drops to 13th in cable ratings
Hey, but they're doing pretty good compared to last year! Hehe see, silver lining! Hehe

>>155622

Here's what I'm reading.

>they make money from advertisers and I don't like that
>this guy has alleged political leanings but somehow that means he's wrong
>they don't let politicians cloak their statements in euphemisms

It's not uncommon for factcheckers to have a spectrum between false and true. In that convenient scenario you mentioned it would've been listed as "mostly true" with the appropriate stipulation mentioned in the article itself. Nice try though.

>they claim neutrality; they AREN'T neutral just because I said so!
I just checked Snopes and they had an article to CNN's advantage (they are NOT using a crisis actor to stage refugees) and an article to Trump's advantage (the first lady of Poland did NOT refuse to shake Trump's hand.)

Weak weak weak weak WEAK.

>>155407
a-are you retarded?

>>155662
Shills don't deserve the internet

It's still real to me dammit!!!!

>>155662
Lol I've never seen such obvious shilling on behalf of Snopes

>>155663
>>155665
>>155800

>gets utterly blown the fuck out on a nearly inconceivable magnitude
>lol you dumb shill!1!!11!1!!1!!

Get the fuck out of my face.

>>155973
That's what a shill would say / do

You played yourself

>>155996

ok kid

>>156024
nowthatswhatIcalloldies.jpg