• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by seeker

  1. 8 hours ago, Kargokings said: keep ignoring the harm factor.. My neighbors are not likely to be holding a function with dozens of people flaunting the laws and those are the ones I would report , not my neighbours.


    KK, please accept my apologies.  Somewhere in the last few posts we (I) switched from speaking in general terms to speaking directly.  This happens to me, sometimes late at night when I'm not thinking straight.  The point I was trying to get across was that we, as a society, seem to have lost the connection to neighbour and community and replaced it with mindless obediance.  Although not quite in the stark terms I expressed above I do feel a connection to neighbour and community that exceeds my respect for authority and desire to drop a dime on them for anything other than clear and present danger.

    So, anyways, sorry about the finger-pointing, accusatory tone in my recent posts - not my intent.



  2. 5 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

    Ratting out??????   If they are dumb enough to think the rules to protect others do no apply to them, REPORT THEM>>>>>>>>  

    This is the difference:  you see yourself as an agent of the state, as an extension of their power while I see the state as the enemy.  I would rather run interference for my neighbour than report them.  The police show up and ask about my neighbour violating some BS bylaw and I'd tell them to "GFY" before I'd tell them anything else.  The enemy to your freedom is not your neighbour trying to have a birthday party in the backyard,

    Report them?  As if I trust Tam, Trudeau, Ford and other politicians more than I value my relationships with my fellow citizens.

  3. 41 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

    Your reply is just DUMB.  I said 

    And that is and will remain MY BUSINESS.   

    My point is that too many people in a group is not some imminent threat of injury to others.  You may think my response is "dumb" while I think people who call the police because they saw 3 people in their neighbour's backyard are dumb.

    Edit:  To clarify - Of course you should call the police if you think think there is some valid reason such as a clear and present danger to person or property but, IMO, far too many people think it's their place to call the police over something they don't like or something that is insignificant or trivial.  I believe, as do many, that the Covid restrictions are trivial, insignificant and pointless.  Ratting out your neighbours because they aren't following these "rules" falls into the mind-your-own-business category.  IMO, of course.

  4. 5 minutes ago, Kargokings said:

    Re turning people in .... well if their activity is in violation of our laws then I would report them for the same reason I would report any activity that is in breach of our laws that has spin offs likely to injure others. 

    My advice, respectfully, is mind your own damn business.  You see someone engaged in assault - call the police, you see someone spinning donuts on the golf green with their lifted F-150 - call the police, you see someone watering their lawn on a Sunday when the bylaw says they can't  - walk on.  Too many people in someone's backyard falls in the lawn-watering category.

  5. 8 hours ago, Kargokings said:

    unless you quote, we have no idea as to which post your remark applies to?  Or are you just ranting in general? 😀

    On one level I have some sympathy for the professor - apparently, well-intentioned and careful and still got caught in the web.  I wonder if, over the years, she had fought against the leftward drift in acceptable thought at her college.  I wonder if she had resisted the ever more constraining policies against what could be said or taught.  We don't know the truth but my guess is that she didn't resist and, instead, tried to mold herself into the new ideal.  She may even been mostly liberal/socialist/commie in her day-to-day interactions and in what she taught and perhaps that's why she felt she was safe to put one toe across the line - Surprise!

    At this point it's my opinion that the university and education system is so rotten and so completely filled with idiot leftists or those who are too weak to resist and therefore enable them that the only way out is to completely replace the system.  Therefore the faster this system collapses the faster it can be replaced.  At some point a university will realize there's an under-served market and will reform itself as the "Free-Speech" and "Conservative-Welcoming" option.  The demand for and success of this will tempt others to join.  I had hoped that the University of Chicago's "No Safe Spaces" declaration would be the start of this but it's been 4 years and it doesn't seem to have spread.  I guess not enough people have felt the pain yet.

  6. 3 hours ago, J.O. said:

    There are several comments on Aviation Herald suggesting that the CAPS system in the SR22 is nothing more than a compensator for lousy airmanship. Of course, these would be the same people who turn on the TCAS and use the autopilot on every flight, but that's "different" somehow. 

    I think of the parachute recovery system as a sort of mechanical ELT - you wouldn't plan to use it, there are big implications if you do use it, but in certain situations there's really nothing that can take it's place.

  7. 3 hours ago, Kargokings said:

    Of course the point is that travel on aircraft allows those with the virus to spread it from Province to Province etc. if they are not detected to be infected.

    I never claimed to be that bright but I don't see the logic of interprovincial travel restrictions now that testing is possible.  Think of this scenario;

    One person from Alberta (person "A") and one person from BC (person "B") each travel to the other province on the same day.  Each are tested on arrival and have negative results .  What's the difference between person A walking around in BC doing the same things that person B could have done if they were there?  None.  Even before testing - what difference between an asymptomatic local and an asymptomatic visitor?

  8. Watch this and think about how out-of-touch this woman is:'Souza&ep=2

    She says, if we were all green we wouldn't have to worry about a pipeline getting hacked.  D'uh!  What about getting your power grid hacked?  I guess only pipelines can get hacked not power grids.  Good to know.

    To use a politically incorrect term I'd call her stupid but that would be an insult to stupid people.


  9. It's not commentary about you.  It's a suggestion, in case you didn't know, that posting the same thing over and over causes your posts to have diminished value.  Take it or leave it.

    Regarding your second point:  CNN isn't propaganda that incites violence?   Get real.

  10. You are correct.  I have used Fox in the past.

    Not just using Fox but repeatedly referring to the same item.

    The reason is that if you use any other mainstream media outlets on this forum, you get slammed about 'fake news' and 'agendas'.

    It is the spin of Fox and the false narratives created by trump that are the problem.

    It started an insurrection.

    Insurrection?  Come on.  That's over-the-top CNN-speak.  Protests in Washington are an insurrection but weeks of occupation in Seattle is a peaceful demonstration?  An insurrection (IMO) requires military action with a plan not a couple of good ole boys at the Dunkin Donut's.

    And do you also realise that once again you are deflecting the conversation to be about me rather than the issues?

    As I clearly said; post the same thing every day - I couldn't care much less.  I'm simply pointing out that it's become repetitive.  I've read it, others have (probably) read it too.  Whatever effect you're going for has been lost after the 7th repost.

    All that being said, I'm deflecting nothing - the second paragraph of my reply directly responds to your item about Fox.  Will you argue the point?  Your post accusing me of "deflecting" is itself a deflection!

    Edited to add:

    Have you seen the posts on this forum that are single sourced and figured out how they get where they are regarding their opinions?

    Enlighten us.

  11. deicer;

    The results of a quick search shows you have used that link/court case involving Fox News in at least 7 posts since September 2020.  Are you under the impression that we are visited by so many new members that you will reach a new set of eyes since your last use on April 14th or that by sheer repetition you'll convince some longtime member who hasn't been convinced by now? Look, I won't stop you - post it every day if you want but you do realize you're wasting the time and keystrokes it takes to do so, right?

    More to the point - the fact that Fox News used a self-immolating defense to thwart a lawsuit is not earth-shattering news.  It's a long-standing tactic used by individuals, corporations and governments since the beginning of time.  If a lawsuit comes up next week that requires the exact opposite argument - they'll do it.  It's simple expediency - nothing more.  It's not the astonishing revelation you seem to be suggesting.


  12. Come on - there are just as many, or more, from CNN.

    For the record, I didn't read your list of Fox controversies or the list of CNN controversies because I know they are both evil!


    Allegations of bias[edit]

    CNN has often been the subject of allegations of party bias. In research conducted by the Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism, the authors found disparate treatment by CNN of Republican and Democratic candidates during the earliest five months of the presidential primaries in 2007: "The CNN programming studied tended to cast a negative light on Republican candidates—by a margin of three-to-one. Four-in-ten stories (41%) were clearly negative while just 14% were positive and 46% were neutral. The network provided negative coverage of all three main candidates with McCain fairing the worst (63% negative) and Romney fairing a little better than the others only because a majority of his coverage was neutral. It's not that Democrats, other than Obama, fared well on CNN either. Nearly half of the Illinois Senator's stories were positive (46%), vs. just 8% that were negative. But both Clinton and Edwards ended up with more negative than positive coverage overall. So while coverage for Democrats overall was a bit more positive than negative, that was almost all due to extremely favorable coverage for Obama."[1] In September 2009, a Pew Research Poll showed that Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to rate the network favorably, while Republicans were much more likely than Democrats to see CNN unfavorably.[2]

    Octavia Nasr firing[edit]

    In 2011, Chief Middle East correspondent Octavia Nasr was fired after a tweet saying she was "Sad to hear of the passing of Saved Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah... One of Hezbollah's giants I respect[ed] a lot." Parisa Khosravi, senior vice president of CNN International, said she spoke with Nasr, and "we have decided that she will be leaving the company". Her reason for her removal was given as "As you know, her tweet over the weekend created a wide reaction. As she has stated in her blog on, she fully accepts that she should not have made such a simplistic comment without any context whatsoever. However, at this point, we believe that her credibility in her position as senior editor for Middle Eastern affairs has been compromised going forward."[3]

    Robert Fisk criticised CNN for the firing, saying, "Poor old CNN goes on getting more cowardly by the hour. That's why no one cares about it any more".[4]

    Semi-automatic weapons[edit]

    CNN apologized for a May 15, 2003, story in which CNN's John Zarella and Broward County, Florida Sheriff Ken Jenne demonstrated the rapid firing of fully automatic firearms while covering the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, due to expire the following year. The Assault Weapons Ban was concerned solely with semi-automatic firearms, not fully automatic ones, which had already been restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the subsequent 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.[5][6]

    Coverage of the 2016 U.S. presidential election[edit]

    Occupy CNN protest[edit]

    On April 3, 2016, hundreds of supporters of Bernie Sanders protested outside of CNN's Los Angeles bureau on Sunset Boulevard. Sanders supporters were protesting CNN's coverage of the 2016 United States presidential elections, specifically in regards to the lack of airtime Sanders had received. Known as Occupy CNN, protesters claimed that major media networks have intentionally blacked out Sanders' presidential campaign in favor of giving much more airtime to candidates such as Hillary Clinton.[7]

    Donna Brazile and Roland Martin[edit]

    In October 2016, WikiLeaks published emails from John Podesta which showed CNN contributor Donna Brazile passing the questions for a CNN-sponsored debate to the Clinton campaign.[8] In the email, Brazile discussed her concern about Clinton's ability to field a question regarding the death penalty. The following day Clinton would receive the question about the death penalty, verbatim, from an audience member at the CNN-hosted Town Hall event.[9] According to a CNNMoney investigation, debate moderator and CNN contributor Roland Martin (now with TV One) "did not deny sharing information with Brazile".[10] CNN severed ties with Brazile on October 14, 2016.[11][12]

    WikiLeaks emails[edit]

    During live coverage of the 2016 elections, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo said that downloading the hacked and stolen Podesta emails from the WikiLeaks website was a violation of law and that only the media could legally do so. The statement drew criticism to the network for being false.[13][14][15]

    Coverage of the 2020 U.S. presidential election[edit]

    CNN Iowa Debate moderation[edit]

    During the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries debate moderated by CNN and the Des Moines Register on January 14, 2020, CNN faced controversy and criticism from media pundits and the public alike over what many saw as blatant bias for centrist candidates[16] as well as a CNN article[17] some journalists believe to be a manufactured hit piece intended to depict Bernie Sanders as a misogynist[18][19] prior to the debate followed by a series of adversarial and loaded questions during the debate itself regarding the anonymously sourced story.[20] The debate moderation by CNN was described as "villainous and shameful" by Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi[21] and Zach Carter at The Huffington Post said the debate moderation was "awful", writing "Again and again, CNN anchors substituted centrist talking points for questions―and then followed up predictable responses with further centrist talking points, rarely illuminating any substantive disagreements between the candidates or problems with their policy positions".[22] Jeet Heer, the national affairs correspondent at The Nation said "the big loser of the night was the network that hosted the event. CNN was so consistently aligned against Bernie Sanders that it compromised its claim to journalistic neutrality."[23] After the debate, the number one trending hashtag on Twitter was "#CNNisTrash".[24][25]

    Trump administration coverage[edit]

    On January 10, 2017, CNN reported on the existence of classified documents that said Russia had compromising personal and financial information about then President-elect Donald Trump. CNN did not publish the dossier, or any specific details of the dossier. Later that day, BuzzFeed published the entire 35-page dossier with a disclaimer that it was unverified and "includes some clear errors".[26][27][28] The dossier had been read widely by political and media figures in Washington, and had been sent to multiple other journalists who had declined to publish it as it was unsubstantiated.[26] At a press conference the following day, Trump referred to CNN as fake news and refused to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta.[29]

    On February 24, 2017, CNN and other media organizations such as The New York Times were blocked from a White House press gaggle. The network responded in a statement: "Apparently this is how they retaliate when you report facts they don't like. We'll keep reporting regardless."[30]

    On June 26, 2017, three network investigative journalists; Thomas Frank, Eric Lichtblau, and Lex Haris, resigned from CNN over a false story, later retracted, that connected Anthony Scaramucci to a $10 billion Russian investment fund. The network apologized to Scaramucci and stated that the online story did not meet their editorial standards.[31]

    The Washington Post again fact-checked a CNN report regarding Trump on December 8, 2017: CNN ran a story that claimed two sources told the network that the Trump campaign received an email that gave Trump and his son Don, Jr., early access to WikiLeaks documents on September 4, 2016. CNN, however, had not obtained the supposed September 4 email. The sender was "Michael J. Erickson", who CNN was not able to contact. The Washington Post, however, did obtain the email, which showed that the email was actually sent on the day after the hacked documents were released by WikiLeaks on September 14, 2016.[32] CNN issued a correction of their story.[citation needed]

    The network also imposed new rules on Russia–related stories being published to social, video, editorial, or MoneyStream without going through the chain of command within CNN.[33]

    In January 2020, Don Lemon had a panel discussion on his show with Republican strategist Rick Wilson and The New York Times columnist Wajahat Ali, both of whom have spoken out against Trump. Lemon began laughing after Wilson joked, "Trump couldn't find Ukraine on a map if you had the letter 'U' and a picture of an actual physical crane next to it" and called Trump supporters "the credulous boomer rube demo."[34] Lemon continued to laugh as the two guests mocked Trump supporters using a southern accent saying things like "you elitists with your geography and your maps and your spelling" and "Your math and your readin'."[35] After Trump responded by calling Lemon "the dumbest man on television," Lemon defended himself saying "During an interview on Saturday night, one of my guests said something that made me laugh. And while in the moment I found that joke humorous, I didn't catch everything that was said. Just to make this perfectly clear, I was laughing at the joke and not at any group of people."[36]

    Coverage on international incidents[edit]

    Persian Gulf War[edit]

    Further information: Media coverage of the Gulf War

    During the Persian Gulf War in 1990–1991, CNN was criticized for excessively pushing human interest stories and avoiding depictions of violent images, the result being an alleged "propagandistic" presentation of news.[37] A report by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) quotes an unnamed CNN reporter as describing "the 'sweet beautiful sight' of bombers taking off from Saudi Arabia".[38]

    Coverage of Iranian protests[edit]

    In 2014, the network was criticized for an unusual absence of live coverage of a large set of protests that followed the 2014 elections in Iran.[39]

    Coverage of Margaret Thatcher's death[edit]

    CNN was criticized for using a photograph of former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Margaret Thatcher with disgraced BBC presenter Jimmy Savile four times during coverage of her death on April 8, 2013.[40] Allegations of sexual abuse against Savile were made public in 2012, a year after his death, leading UK police to believe that Savile may have been one of Britain's most prolific sex offenders.[41] An image of Thatcher with Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was also run during the broadcast, leading some commentators to accuse CNN of bias.[42]

    Conflict with Venezuelan government[edit]

    On February 8, 2017, a joint CNN and CNN en Español investigation – based on the information provided by a whistleblower exiled in Spain and subsequent investigations, reported that employees of the Venezuelan Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq has been selling passports and visas to persons from Middle Eastern countries with dubious backgrounds for profits, including to members of the Lebanese group Hezbollah. The Venezuelan immigration department, SAIME, confirmed the sold passports' genuineness as each passport came with an assigned national identification number, although the names of these individuals were altered when checking against the national database. At least one individual's place of birth was also changed from Iraq to Venezuela. The Venezuelan foreign minister, Delcy Rodriguez, denied the government's involvement when questioned by the reporters during the Seventy-first session of the United Nations General Assembly, and accused the network of performing what she described as an "imperialistic media operation" against Venezuela for airing the year-long fraud investigation.[43] On February 14, 2017, Venezuelan authorities banned CNN en Español from broadcasting two days after the Venezuelan president, Nicolas Maduro, ordered CNN to "[get] well away from here".[44][45]

    After the decision, CNN responded by providing a live-streaming service on YouTube and CNN en Español's website free of charge for Venezuelan viewers. The English-language CNN International channel is still being broadcast in Venezuela.[46]

    Essex lorry deaths reports[edit]

    Main article: Essex lorry deaths

    On October 23, 2019, 39 dead bodies were discovered in a refrigerated lorry in Essex, United Kingdom. There were initial reports from the media saying that all 31 men and eight women inside the lorry were Chinese illegal immigrants being smuggled into the UK.[47] On the October 25, 2019 Chinese Foreign Ministry's daily press conference, the Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying stated that "[t]he British police are working against the clock to verify the victims, but currently they are not able to confirm their nationalities."[48] In a follow up question, CNN reporter David Culver linked the incident with the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China celebrated earlier by asking "there have been many successes, advances and progress of the past 70 years with the People's Republic of China, [but] from an outside perspective, what would then motivate people from China to want to leave in such a risky way?"[48][49] A similar CNN commentary was also published earlier questioning "Why would people from China, the world's second-biggest economy, risk their lives to enter the UK?"[50] Hua criticised that the question was inappropriate, repeated that the nationalities of the victims were still under verification, and retorted "What kind of answer did you hope to get from that?". She said the CNN reporter's presumption of linking the identity of those victims with the PRC's 70th anniversary reflected the "wrongful mindset" of the Western media. Hua also emphasised that the current pressing issue was to step up international cooperation in countering human trafficking, and find ways to avoid similar tragedies from happening again. In the report of CNN, this question was described only "about the possibility of Chinese citizens being illegally trafficked" and "was rebuffed by the spokesperson".[51]

    The video clip of the press conference was immediately widely publicised and circulated on Chinese websites and social media, with many Chinese being angered by CNN's question and praising Hua's "appropriate" reply.[52][53] Hu Xijin, editor of the Chinese newspaper Global Times and an influential news commentator on the social media, said on his Weibo that the CNN reporter was "brought into a ditch" by the Chinese public intellectuals who "seemed to collude with each other". Hu said he wanted to remind those reporters they "should not just look at those few dissidents who hold different opinions and shouting on the Internet. Reach more to the general public in Chinese society. Don't just listen to opinions pleasing to yourselves." [54] Later as the police confirmed that all victims were from Vietnam, the People's Daily also published an online commentary criticising CNN for "violat[ing] the ethics of news reporting", and "show[ing] its intention to tarnish China's image without acquiring solid facts and final results from British police." [55]

    Operation Tailwind[edit]

    Further information: Operation Tailwind

    In 1998, CNN, in partnership with sister Time magazine, ran a report that during the Vietnam War the U.S. Armed Forces used sarin gas against a group of North Vietnamese soldiers during Operation Tailwind in 1970 in Laos. The Pentagon denied the story. Skeptics deemed it improbable that such an extraordinary and risky atrocity could have gone unnoticed at the height of the Vietnam War's unpopularity. CNN, after a two-week inquiry, issued a retraction.[56] The story's producers were summarily fired, and one of them has been highly critical of CNN's handling of the story, saying that the network bowed to pressure from high-ranking officials to kill the story.[57][58]

    Suppression of Bahraini protests, and reporting of Iran and Syria[edit]

    In October 2011, correspondent Amber Lyon met with Tony Maddox, president of CNN International, twice about a documentary on advances of democracy in the Middle East in which she was featured, and which was aired in the US but never by CNN International—the most watched English news channel in the Middle East—despite a high production cost, international acclaim and awards. She claimed that during the second meeting she was threatened and intimated to stop speaking on the matter. According to a CNN employee, officials from the Bahrain regime called CNN constantly complaining about Lyon's participation in the network. She was later laid-off.[59]


    Resignation of Eason Jordan[edit]

    In February 2005, Jordan resigned from CNN. The resignation came in response to controversy sparked after bloggers wrote that, at the recent World Economic Forum, Jordan had seemed to accuse the U.S. military of having purposely killed journalists. While Jordan acknowledged his remarks were not sufficiently clear, he denied that this was what he had meant to imply, saying that he had "great admiration and respect for the men and women of the U.S. armed forces".[60]

    Jeff Zucker[edit]

    CNN was criticized for its coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, after erroneously reporting that a "dark-skinned male" had been arrested in connection with the attack.[61][62][63] In the aftermath of the broadcast, Jeff Zucker – who became president of CNN in 2013 – lauded the coverage, claiming that "CNN shined this week",[64] and boasted ratings success that CNN achieved during the coverage, adding that "viewers respected the network's accountability when it admitted its mistakes".[65] Jon Stewart criticized Zucker's comments after calling CNN's coverage of the Washington Navy Yard shooting "breathless wrongness", claiming that, "The lesson they take from this is – it doesn't matter how much they betray our trust. We'll keep coming back."[65]

    In 2017, Vox described CNN as "treat[ing] politics like a sport" and highlighted how CNN under Jeff Zucker heavily uses debates to manufacture drama.[66]

    Individual hosts and contributors[edit]

    Reza Aslan[edit]

    After the 2017 London Bridge attack, Reza Aslan took to Twitter to call then-President Donald Trump "a piece of **bleep**" and a "man baby" for his response to the attack.[67] In response to his remarks, CNN announced on June 9 that they had severed ties with Aslan and said they would not move forward with season two of the Believer series.[68] Aslan said of the cancellation, "I am not a journalist. I am a social commentator and scholar. And so, I agree with CNN that it is best that we part ways."[68]

    Brooke Baldwin[edit]

    During the 2015 Baltimore riots, Brooke Baldwin suggested that veterans were responsible for the unrest, saying soldiers who become police officers "are coming back from war, they don't know the communities, and they're ready to do battle". Baldwin initially pushed back critics, claiming she was just repeating something a city official had told her. She later apologized via Twitter and on-air.[69]

    Carol Costello[edit]

    On October 22, 2014, CNN Newsroom host Carol Costello reported on the audio release of Bristol Palin being assaulted by a man at a get-together in Alaska. Costello laughed and called it "quite possibly the best minute and a half of audio we've ever come across".[70] She was instantly criticized for making fun of a woman who was being physically abused by a man she did not know, as well as for being a hypocrite after recently calling for ESPN to suspend Stephen A. Smith after comments he made about women during the Ray Rice controversy. Costello eventually apologized in a statement to Politico, stating: "Over the past few days, I have been roundly criticized for joking about a brawl involving the Palin family. In retrospect, I deserve such criticism and would like to apologize."[71]

    Lou Dobbs[edit]

    CNN host Lou Dobbs promoted the false conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States.[72][73] His willingness to raise the "birther" issue repeatedly[74] even though CNN itself considered it a "discredited rumor",[75] led The Washington Post's TV critic to remark that this "explains their upcoming documentary: 'The World: Flat. We Report – You Decide.'"[76] The issue had come up in 2008 during the Presidential campaign, and had largely disappeared from the media spotlight until Dobbs picked up the issue again.[77] His statements in support of these conspiracy theories were dubbed "racist" and "defamatory" by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[78][79] The controversy led to Media Matters airing ads critical of Dobbs and of CNN,[80] and to Jon Stewart mocking Dobbs on the satirical Comedy Central television series The Daily Show.[81] The New York Times said that Dobbs had "become a publicity nightmare for CNN, embarrassed his boss and hosted a show that seemed to contradict the network's 'no bias' brand."[82]

    Don Lemon[edit]

    On June 22, 2015, Don Lemon attempted to spark debate by holding up the Confederate flag and a sign with "nigger" written in large capital letters while asking, "does this offend you?" He received immediate criticism for the stunt.[83] It also started a series of memes on the internet, which featured the original screen shot of Lemon holding the sign, the headline "Does this Offend You?" and different images or sayings photo-shopped over the sign.[84]

    Fredricka Whitfield[edit]

    Further information: 2015 attack on Dallas police

    On June 13, 2015, while discussing the 2015 attack on the Dallas police headquarters, host Fredricka Whitfield referred to the gunman, James Boulware, as "courageous and brave, if not crazy". The comment received immediate backlash and calls for her to apologize. The next day, Whitfield stated on air that she misspoke and in no way believed the gunman was courageous or brave.[85] After the backlash continued, she issued another on-air apology on June 15, saying she terribly misused those words, now understood how offensive it was and was sincerely sorry.[86][87]


    Jon Stewart's Crossfire appearance[edit]

    Comedian Jon Stewart appeared on Crossfire on October 15, 2004 and criticized its format and the style of arguments presented on the show. He called hosts Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala "partisan hacks", and asked them to "stop hurting America". Begala argued that the purpose of the show was that it was intended as for debate, to which Stewart responded "To do a debate would be great. But that's like saying Pro Wrestling is a show about athletic competition" and called Carlson's signature bow-tie an example of "theater". At one point Carlson told Stewart "I think you're more fun on your show", Stewart replied by saying: "You know what's interesting though? You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show." Carlson later told Stewart that, "You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think", to which Stewart quipped, "You need to go to one".[88][89][90]

    Carlson departed CNN in January 2005; the network cancelled Crossfire at that same time. CNN president Jonathan Klein stated that, "I agree wholeheartedly with Jon Stewart's overall premise."[90][91] Carlson said that he had resigned from CNN before Stewart's appearance claiming: "I resigned from Crossfire in April, many months before Jon Stewart came on our show, because I didn't like the partisanship, and I thought in some ways it was kind of a pointless conversation... each side coming out, you know, [raises fists] 'Here's my argument', and no one listening to anyone else. [CNN] was a frustrating place to work."[92][93] Begala remained with CNN after Crossfire's cancellation.

    Steubenville High School rape case coverage[edit]

    Candy Crowley, Poppy Harlow and Paul Callan were criticized for being sympathetic towards the two convicted rapists in the Steubenville High School rape case and for placing very little focus on the victim on March 17, 2013.[94] During the course of the delinquent verdict, Harlow stated that it was "Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart...when that sentence came down, [Ma'lik] collapsed in the arms of his attorney... He said to him, 'My life is over. No one is going to want me now.'"[95] An online petition garnered over 200,000 signatures protesting the coverage and demanding an apology.[96]

    CNN also revealed the name of the 16-year-old victim on March 17 by broadcasting unedited footage of one of the convicted rapists' post-conviction statements. This practice is against the Associated Press guidelines for coverage.[97]

    Coverage of the Cleveland kidnapping victims[edit]

    On the morning of May 7, 2013, CNN interrupted coverage of the Jodi Arias murder trial with an update of the release of three young women from Cleveland, Ohio who were kidnapped by Ariel Castro between 2002 and 2004. CNN correspondent Ashleigh Banfield appeared to interview HLN host Nancy Grace from a remote location, and it appeared that both were filming from parking lots. The channel graphics later alerted viewers that both reporters were in Phoenix, Arizona. The same cars were noticeable driving behind the two anchors, first behind Banfield and then by Grace. It became obvious that Grace and Banfield were, in fact, sitting in the same parking lot, pretending to be in remote locations when both were actually approximately 30 feet from each other.[98]

    Redditor controversy[edit]

    On July 2, 2017, then-President Donald Trump posted a video on Twitter depicting him repeatedly clotheslining and punching WWE owner Vince McMahon on the ground during WrestleMania 23. The clip had been edited to place a CNN logo over McMahon's face. Two days later, CNN published a story entitled, "How CNN found the Reddit user behind the Trump wrestling GIF", which labeled Reddit user "HanAssholeSolo" as the creator of the viral video. In the article, political reporter Andrew Kaczynski explained the process that allowed the organization to discover the identity of the user.[99]

    After the publication of the article, the user posted an apology to CNN, including apologies for previous Reddit postings that could be taken as well as containing racist, anti-Islam, and anti-Semitic language and imagery on the Reddit group /r/The_Donald. Immediately afterwards, his apology was locked and deleted by the subreddit's moderators[99][100][101] while the user deleted his Reddit account.[102][103] After confirming the identity of the Reddit user, HanAssholeSolo expressed his unwillingness for his name to be released to the public. In response, CNN stated that they would not reveal his name, as he was "[a] private citizen who has issued an extensive statement of apology, showed his remorse by saying he has taken down all his offending posts, and because he said he is not going to repeat this ugly behavior on social media again. In addition, he said his statement could serve as an example to others not to do the same. CNN reserves the right to publish his identity should any of that change."[99]

    Prominent right-wing users on social media subsequently accused CNN of blackmailing the user, using a hashtag, #CNNBlackmail, that was heavily pushed by Julian Assange, as well as various right-wing online activists and conspiracy theorists.[104][105] Kaczynski responded by stating that CNN's statement was "misinterpreted", and that the user said that he was not threatened prior to his apology.[106] Meanwhile, Madison Malone Kircher of New York magazine opined that CNN could have avoided the internet vigilantism if the network had simply published his identity, as is common in similar situations, criticizing their decision to "protect" the user.[107]

    CNN's decision to withhold the user's name was also criticized by William Grueskin, a professor at Columbia University. Grueskin argued that the user was neither an abuse victim nor a confidential witness nor a juvenile. Meanwhile, Indira Lakshmanan of Poynter Institute said that it was more likely that, out of fear, the user begged CNN to have his name withheld.[108] Kirsten Powers, a commentator at CNN, also criticized CNN's decision, asking in a USA Today article: "What about the people he routinely dehumanizes and degrades online?"[109] Powers also wrote on Twitter that "people do not have a 'right' to stay anonymous so they can spew their racist, misogynist, homophobic garbage".[110]

    Coverage of the Kenosha unrest[edit]

    See also: Kenosha unrest

    On the night of August 26, 2020, CNN displayed a video caption during a news report showing a building engulfed in flames during the Kenosha unrest that read "Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests After Police Shooting".[111] Conservative and Republican users on social media criticized the caption, including Eric Trump, son of then-President Donald Trump.[111]


  13. 4 minutes ago, deicer said:

    Then it should be reported as such.  Not as a conspiracy theory false narrative that they excel in producing.


    That's true.  This is a problem on both sides I think you'll agree.  i'm not defending it, just explaining it.



  14. 17 minutes ago, deicer said:

    From the same news outlet that declared Biden would force you to eat less meat.

    Fox News Channel
    stated on April 23, 2021 in a TV graphic:
    "Biden's climate requirements" will "cut 90% of red meat from diet" to a "max 4 lbs per year" and "one burger per month."

    You see, this is the problem.  It's true, Biden never said anything about cutting red meat but he did say cut cut greenhouse gases by 50%.  Cutting greenhouse gas production by %50 would necessarily cut production of red meat - no other way.  It's like Trudeau saying, we're going to tax the hell out of carbon but we're not saying that the price of gas will go up. 

    Biden's "climate requirements" will price the production of beef dramatically higher - to the point where there is a %90 reduction?  We don't know, but it's possible.

  15. 15 minutes ago, deicer said:

    Fact check:

    I will still take my scientific advice from virologists and not from a homeopath.

    Yeah, I'm aware.  You believe who you want to believe.  Personally, I think the science on Vitamin D is perfectly clear.  I believe the science on asymptomatic spread is perfectly clear.  Taking Vitamin D has a significant prophylactic effect and asymptomatic spread is nonsense.  Ask yourself - does taking Vitamin D for pennies a day seem worthwhile?  Does asymptomatic spread seem like it could actually be possible?

  16. Please watch this (12 minute) video:

    I'd just like to point out that I posted on these forums last March that I thought the idea of "asymptomatic spread" was BS and that the key to beating Covid (or any virus) was taking Vitamin D.

    The idea that Covid is somehow completely different from every other virus on the planet and can spread from asymptomatic people is ridiculous.  Just think about what you have been told and ask yourself - does it make any sense?