# CNN is no longer journalism **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 7, 2021, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366 "2021-03-07T00:27:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/61 "2021-03-07T22:19:43Z")
Well, one is funded by the public, and the other is run by the govt. It’s the difference between CBC, BBC, and NPR vs TASS or Russia Today. I’m not sure how best to explain it. If you can explain what it is about apples and orange trees that you have difficulty distinguishing, then maybe I can help you out. And if you truly do not see a difference between CBC and TASS, then any claims you make about biased media should be dismissed as the ravings of an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/62 "2021-03-07T22:27:17Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Well, one is funded by the public, and the other is run by the govt. If a news source is funded by the public, how is that different from being run by the government? I get how NPR gets it funding. But where does CBC get its funding? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/63 "2021-03-07T22:37:30Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > If a news source is funded by the public, how is that different from being run by the government? There’s a distinction between a government _funding_ a news organization, but allowing it to operate independently (and even cover news events or presenting opinion in which the government is criticized), and a government _controlling_ what that news organization covers, and what it says (which nearly always amounts to presenting the government in a favorable light). That is the difference. ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/64 "2021-03-07T22:42:56Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > That is the difference. Once the government funds a news organization, what prevents it from controlling it? It doesn’t seem like government-funded media has a good track record. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/65 "2021-03-07T22:45:45Z")
If something is run by the govt, then the govt determines who it hires and fires, what stories it runs. If it is funded by the public, then that is not the case. It is an independent entity that makes its own choices as to staffing and coverage. Do you _really_ think that there is no difference between CBC and TASS? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/66 "2021-03-07T22:47:07Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Once the government funds a news organization, what prevents it from controlling it? If it’s a functioning democratic republic, which doesn’t generally try to crush public dissent, and which has set up its state-funded news organization with an independent board of directors and editors, which are allowed to present all sides of a story, that’s what prevents it. On the other hand, if the government in question is an autocracy or totalitarian regime, odds are really high that they are also going to be controlling the output of their state-run news organization. Also… > [@](#): > > It doesn’t seem like government-funded media has a good track record. The BBC, for one, has an outstanding track record. Government-funded media **in countries which also pursue other means to suppress public discourse** doesn’t have a good track record, no. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/67 "2021-03-07T22:48:25Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Once the government funds a news organization, what prevents it from controlling it? I mean, nothing, I suppose, it _could_ choose to take them over and run them like TASS. But that is the case with any media outlet. The govt could choose to take over FOX or MSNBC. > [@EastUmpqua](#): > > It doesn’t seem like government-funded media has a good track record. Really? So you really think that the BBC, CBC, NPR, PBS and the rest have a poor track record? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/68 "2021-03-07T22:52:40Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Once the government funds a news organization, what prevents it from controlling it? Again, using the BBC news operation as an example, as it is described in [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News): > [@](#): > > The BBC is a [quasi-autonomous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-autonomous_non-government_organisation) corporation authorised by [royal charter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisations_in_the_United_Kingdom_with_a_royal_charter), making it operationally independent of the government, who have no power to appoint or dismiss its director general, and require it to report impartially. This certainly does get questioned, of course, though by both the government _ **and** _ the opposition; as Wikipedia goes on to state: > [@](#): > > The BBC is required by its charter to be free from both political and commercial influence and answers only to its viewers and listeners. This political objectivity is sometimes questioned. For instance, _[The Daily Telegraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph)_ (3 August 2005) carried a letter from the [KGB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB) defector [Oleg Gordievsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Gordievsky), referring to it as “The Red Service”. Books have been written on the subject, including anti-BBC works like _Truth Betrayed_ by W J West and _The Truth Twisters_ by Richard Deacon. > > The BBC’s Editorial Guidelines on Politics and Public Policy state that whilst “the voices and opinions of opposition parties must be routinely aired and challenged”, “the government of the day will often be the primary source of news”.[[90]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_News#cite_note-BBCEditorialGuidelines-90) > > The BBC is regularly accused by the government of the day of bias in favour of the opposition and, by the opposition, of bias in favour of the government. Similarly, during times of war, the BBC is often accused by the UK government, or by strong supporters of British military campaigns, of being overly sympathetic to the view of the enemy. An edition of _[Newsnight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsnight)_ at the start of the [Falklands War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War) in 1982 was described as “almost treasonable” by [John Page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Page_(UK_politician)), MP, who objected to [Peter Snow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Snow) saying “if we believe the British”. ---
**Author:** ![Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmer_j.fudd/32/1211_2.png) [@Elmer\_J.Fudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elmer_J.Fudd)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/69 "2021-03-07T22:54:36Z")
Can we stop calling political commentators and news readers _journalists_? ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/70 "2021-03-07T23:06:59Z")
> [@kenobi\_65](#): > > If it’s a functioning democratic republic My bad – I should have said “If it’s a functioning democratic state.” The United Kingdom, one of the examples we’re talking about, isn’t a republic. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/71 "2021-03-07T23:20:51Z")
> [@HMS\_Irruncible](#): > > I see that as a good thing. It’s always good when hot takes have 24 hours to cool down. Not that I rely on newspapers very much… they’re getting thinner and thinner in both quality and material. But a good 5-paragraph longform piece has usually been through at least one editing cycle. Sur - that’s why I always read the weekend newspaper for an in-depth summary and analysis of the week’s events. Daily analysis isn’t as effective, IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2021, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/72 "2021-03-07T23:34:35Z")
It’s so amusing when someone admits their strong opinions on a subject are based on . . . absolutely nothing! > Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Well, that’s horsepuckey, of course. We are not entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions. Without research, without background, without understanding, it’s nothing. It’s just bibble-babble. It’s like a fart in a wind tunnel folks. > Harlan Ellison Now, @EastUmpqua if you’d be so kind, stay downwind. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/73 "2021-03-08T03:58:31Z")
Isn’t the BBC funded by the television license fee, which is completely separate from normal taxes in the UK? That’s what I remember being a big argument of how it remains independent of the government. I also note that, well, they report on other countries. Back when I still checked the news every day, it was usually from the BBC website, as I knew they wouldn’t have any US biases. (I realized that doing this caused me a lot of anxiety about things I couldn’t control, so cut back on news consumption.) I also would never recommend getting actual news from the 24-hour networks. I may go there for some analysis (which I treat the way I could any possibly biased analysis) but not for the news itself. I still try to go for the least sensationalist news I can find for actual news (and not just entertaining/heartwarming stories, which I also seek out for balance). I think I and the OP can find common ground in the idea that cable news isn’t good. I just don’t think CNN is an especially bad example. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/74 "2021-03-08T04:38:31Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > In my opinion there should be qualifications journalists have to earn and maintain, e.g. ‘professional journalist’ that differentiates them from pretty faces on TV. I’m not the only one who would like to be able to trust news sources. Journalists need to step up. If government gets involved, there is no hope. I don’t think qualifications would work. e.g. Tucker Carlson recently used the defense in court that his show should not be taken seriously by a reasonable viewer. In a sane world, that would be far, far more damning to his audience even than his lack of qualifications in journalism or politics. But no, his audience watch his show to confirm their beliefs, they are of course not interested in hearing that he’s an unreliable source. * * * My opinion about regulating the news remains that we need to get to a place where a mainstream news broadcaster should be as wary of making up shit about election fraud as they would be about making up shit about Disney. I haven’t figured out how it would work in practice though. Exactly who should be able to sue who, and whether the punishment should be fines or disclaimers or whatever. My opinion is that it’s possible and I don’t believe it affects freedom of speech (you can say what you like, but if later it turns out to have been wild claims without any sources, there’s consequences for that). ---
**Author:** ![nearwildheaven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/90db22/32.png) [@nearwildheaven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nearwildheaven)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/75 "2021-03-08T05:52:17Z")
I remember when the whole “fair and balanced” thing, before the phrase was stolen by Fux Noize, started in the 1990s. CNN was notorious for having the most RWNJ commentators they could find, for the “balanced” part. Needless to say, that didn’t last very long. And I’ll never forget the summer of 2010, when CNN was all day, all the time, “You shouldn’t bully gay teenagers, because it might make them commit suicide.” I remember the year because of some other things that were going on in my life at the time. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/76 "2021-03-08T14:07:22Z")
I’d love to think there would be room for that, but I’m skeptical that the nature of today’s journalistic landscape would allow for something like that to be anything other than something individuals opt into. Even if the “real” journalistic outlets required some kind of society membership or held their employees accountable for breaches of the code, you’d still have your National Enquirers, NewsMaxes, and the like that are more concerned with things other than journalistic integrity, and in all likelihood would press for more lurid/sexy/angering stories despite the code, because that’s what makes money. And that’s ultimately the problem here; since the consumer has multiple choices, the competing news sources all have to essentially choose what market segments they’re going to compete for. NPR and Fox News aren’t really competing for the same set of people for example, and what’s going to make for compelling and interesting news for an NPR consumer isn’t going to be the same for a Fox News consumer. So while journalism still has its place, it’s not necessarily the primary thing people look for when choosing their news provider. This seems to be a rather pervasive modern thing- we have way more choice in almost everything than in the past, and it has IMO, caused our society to be more fragmented in more dimensions than ever before. People didn’t have the same variety of churches, news outlets, restaurants, grocery stores, sports teams, sports themselves to follow, TV shows, etc… ---
**Author:** ![EastUmpqua](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eastumpqua/32/6025_2.png) [@EastUmpqua](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EastUmpqua)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/77 "2021-03-08T21:44:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > You’re either a fucking idiot (my choice) or pretending to be one It’s the former. I’ll own that. I thought this forum (BBQ pit) would be a good venue to talk about media bias. I’d trust the CBC over Tass any day. But Russia isn’t a Stalinist dictatorship these days. > [@k9bfriender](#): > > And if you truly do not see a difference between CBC and TASS, then any claims you make about biased media should be dismissed as the ravings of an idiot. Of course I see the difference. I don’t trust media funded by the government. Nor media funded by click bait. There must be a better way. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/78 "2021-03-08T23:00:45Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > There must be a better way. Yes, media funded by unicorn farts. BBC and NPR are among the most trustworthy news sources, and both get some funding from the government. Both are more trustworthy, or at least more informative, than any of the cable news sources, more trustworthy than nearly all newspapers. They both do groundbreaking investigative work, expose problems with government. NPR always discloses when an article covers one of their sponsors. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2021, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/79 "2021-03-08T23:01:41Z")
> [@EastUmpqua](#): > > Of course I see the difference. I don’t trust media funded by the government. Nor media funded by click bait. There must be a better way. What other way do you think there is? You can have it funded by the public or you can have it funded by private interests. There really are no other options to fund something. As far as private interests, there are some options. The most common, that of sponsorship by advertisers, is the clickbate that you bemoan. The other options would be some sort of subscriber or patron model. But in that case, the journalism needs to please the individuals that are giving it money. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2021, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366/80 "2021-03-09T01:50:03Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > I don’t think qualifications would work. > e.g. Tucker Carlson recently used the defense in court that his show should not be taken seriously by a reasonable viewer. In a sane world, that would be far, far more damning to his audience even than his lack of qualifications in journalism or politics. But no, his audience watch his show to confirm their beliefs, they are of course not interested in hearing that he’s an unreliable source. In addition, you also have people who claim to be more than journalists. Michael Moore (who is basically irrelevant these days, but I still think is a good example) once said this about himself when asked if he considered himself a journalist. [“Are the editorial pages of the New York Times journalism? Yes. But they’re opinion. They’re opinion based on fact. In my case, it’s going to take somebody 20 or 30 years to figure out what I came up with, because while it’s journalism, it’s also satire coupled with a large sprinkling of opinion to create a work of art.”](https://www.vulture.com/2007/05/andy_serkis_and_i_are.html) So how the hell would you classify something like that? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cnn-is-no-longer-journalism/937366.md?page=5)