CNN Opinion: Arizona's Next Step Might As Well Be To Use Nukes On Illegal Immigrants

[Peikko 1,575]

The nature of opinion pieces is that they are promoting one point of view, that's why it's called an OPINION. Guess what, opinion pieces across the board are slanted in the direction of the person writing the piece and has NOTHING to do with whether a news outlet is or isn't biased. Perhaps if you understand that, OPINION pieces will not get you seething with anger?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The nature of opinion pieces is that they are promoting one point of view, that's why it's called an OPINION. Guess what, opinion pieces across the board are slanted in the direction of the person writing the piece and has NOTHING to do with whether a news outlet is or isn't biased. Perhaps if you understand that, OPINION pieces will not get you seething with anger?

It's not about the piece itself. It's the fact that CNN does this constantly. Every single opinion piece they put up in the main loop of news stories always has this type of slant to it. It's consistently like this. There becomes a point to where you realize it's purposeful.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

It's not about the piece itself. It's the fact that CNN does this constantly. Every single opinion piece they put up in the main loop of news stories always has this type of slant to it. It's consistently like this. There becomes a point to where you realize it's purposeful.

Actually CNN is the weakest on opinion and slant. They made a decision to stay away from it a few years ago and they are getting hammered in the ratings by the other media groups who spew fringe ideology.

I guess Americans like listening to the extremes. Does that make Americans extremists?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Sousuke

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not about the piece itself. It's the fact that CNN does this constantly. Every single opinion piece they put up in the main loop of news stories always has this type of slant to it. It's consistently like this. There becomes a point to where you realize it's purposeful.

Do you in your niavity believe that any news organization is inherently unbiased? Opinion pieces are particularly notorious for their slanted view, for the reasons I have already outlined and whatever the organization bias is will be magnified. But so what?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Do you in your niavity believe that any news organization is inherently unbiased? Opinion pieces are particularly notorious for their slanted view, for the reasons I have already outlined and whatever the organization bias is will be magnified. But so what?

you dare to call me naive?

ok, I needed a good laugh for the day.

Moving on.....

I never said news organizations weren't bias in the way they go about daily business, but CNN has always done well in recent years to try not to be in the main news cycle. It's just pathetic to see an obvious slant put into the main page news like that.

[Peikko 1,575]

you dare to call me naive?

ok, I needed a good laugh for the day.

Moving on.....

I never said news organizations weren't bias in the way they go about daily business, but CNN has always done well in recent years to try not to be in the main news cycle. It's just pathetic to see an obvious slant put into the main page news like that.

You demonstrated niavity by suggesting that a news organization that purports to be less skewed in its journalism should balance it's opinion pieces. You want to talk about pathetic, well, that is right there.

More than that, what does it matter to you one way or the other anyway? You don't like it and?

Edited May 27, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You demonstrated niavity by suggesting that a news organization that purports to be less skewed in its journalism should balance it's opinion pieces. You want to talk about pathetic, well, that is right there.

More than that, what does it matter to you one way or the other anyway? You don't like it and?

It does matter because it skews others opinions on things at times.

The media was never intended to be a tool to make people lean one way or another. The media was a tool to keep government and other leaders in check.

However the media no longer looks out for the little guy, the only look out for themselves and their ratings/profits depending on who's reading their stories.

Of course when all major news organizations are corporately owned, then I suppose this is what you can expect.

[Peikko 1,575]

It does matter because it skews others opinions on things at times.

The media was never intended to be a tool to make people lean one way or another. The media was a tool to keep government and other leaders in check.

However the media no longer looks out for the little guy, the only look out for themselves and their ratings/profits depending on who's reading their stories.

Of course when all major news organizations are corporately owned, then I suppose this is what you can expect.

Huh? Seriously Paul, what? Media has always had an 'owner' and each outlet has had a bias.

If you want to look at what has changed, then the thing that has changed is the requirement to be first to have the news and to fling it out on the media waves a.s.a.p because 'breaking news' is the flavour de jour. That doesn't really jive with quality, investigative journalism, more's the pity.

To clarify, breaking news has always been the thing, but current media has reduced the time line so that journalists have to make these instant assessments, which for the most part leads to junk assessments.

and less time to verify source materials - another problem area.