• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

WWE is more real than CNN

Bucky said:
I'll be honest. I enjoy WWE and have been a life long wrestling fan. Even though the show is scripted, it is enjoyable. At times the storylines are intruging but Vince McMahon knows how to put on a good show.

IMO CNN has less credibility than WWE. At least with the WWE they don't deny they are sports entertainment. IMO CNN is media entertainment. They are as much as real media as the WWE is to real wrestling.

WWE understands who they are. CNN is like masturbating with hot sauce. It is neither pleasurable or entertaining. What is CNN's purpose?
Click to expand...

CNN's purpose is to make money reporting the news their viewers want to watch in the way their viewers want it presented. They give you the basic truth of a story but will sensationalize it or the opposite depending on the scenario. It isn't pleasurable or entertaining to you, but they're making bank right now. They know exactly who they are and so do their viewers.

It sounds like you watch the WWE. I'm guessing you don't read a lot. Real journalism still exists, the Wall Street Journal being an excellent example.
 
code1211 said:
Well, I confess that I cannot find the news report from FOX news about the Seth Rich Story. I can see references to mentions by talking heads, but not the news division.

Can you present the news story that you seem to think exists?

From both Politifact and CNN, there is a reference in stories about the retraction by FOX to a private investigator who made the charge and this was therefore sourced and attributed. He retracted the charge the next day according to both.

Do you see the difference? Lacking an attribution but presenting the story as fact is journalistic malpractice.

Presenting a story with proper attribution is the job of journalists.

The CNN folks were fired for their lack of professionalism. Not for the story itself.

Disagreeing with a story and citing the malpractice are two very different things.

Can you link to the presentation of this story as broadcast by FOX? I couldn't find it...
Click to expand...

The National Review calling Fox's coverage of the Seth Rich "conspiracy" a disgrace.

This was the most covered story Fox did on Seth Rich. This story led to this tidbit on snopes:
On 19 May 2017, the Rich family attorney sent Wheeler a cease and desist letter saying he had violated a contract forbidding him to publicly disclose information about the case and threatening to sue if he continues to do so.
Click to expand...

Wheeler worked with the Maryland PD for 5 years (they wouldn't say if he was a detective or not, as he claims) and then was fired. He says he is a private investigator but isn't registered as one. He said the FBI was investigating the murder, which it is not. He claimed he has a contact at the FBI who says the murder was linked to wikileaks. You think that's true? This guy should never have been let on the air. No credibility and every claim he made has been proven to or sounds absurd. I'd love to know why the MPD fired him.
 
Bucky said:
I'll be honest. I enjoy WWE and have been a life long wrestling fan. Even though the show is scripted, it is enjoyable. At times the storylines are intruging but Vince McMahon knows how to put on a good show.

IMO CNN has less credibility than WWE. At least with the WWE they don't deny they are sports entertainment. IMO CNN is media entertainment. They are as much as real media as the WWE is to real wrestling.

WWE understands who they are. CNN is like masturbating with hot sauce. It is neither pleasurable or entertaining. What is CNN's purpose?
Click to expand...

But still more people believe in CNN than they do in the Trump oddity, at least where trustworthiness is involved CNN scores higher.
 
I like WWE too. CNN will admit to being entertainment when they get taken to court just like Fox and Infowars did.
 
There are hundreds of threads on many political forums demonizing the legitimacy of CNN. The funny thing is, it's all Fox supporters doing this. Hypocrites. Every last one of them.
 
Mustachio said:
The National Review calling Fox's coverage of the Seth Rich "conspiracy" a disgrace.

This was the most covered story Fox did on Seth Rich. This story led to this tidbit on snopes:


Wheeler worked with the Maryland PD for 5 years (they wouldn't say if he was a detective or not, as he claims) and then was fired. He says he is a private investigator but isn't registered as one. He said the FBI was investigating the murder, which it is not. He claimed he has a contact at the FBI who says the murder was linked to wikileaks. You think that's true? This guy should never have been let on the air. No credibility and every claim he made has been proven to or sounds absurd. I'd love to know why the MPD fired him.
Click to expand...

Okay.

I didn't watch the whole clip, but the first 2 or so minutes shows that the link was to the Sean Hannity Show. I think Hannity is a commentator , not a hard news reporter.

At the start of the clip, there is a fairly long and specific explanation of the upcoming interview offering various caveats to the voracity of the investigator's story.

However, after that intro, Hannity introduces the guy as being very reliable and apparently a fine fellow.

As a commentary show, the flames were then fanned and I got bored with it. I find commentary shows featuring ideologues to be tedious and predictable. Very hard to watch.

Was this story reported on FOX as actual news?
 
code1211 said:
Okay.

I didn't watch the whole clip, but the first 2 or so minutes shows that the link was to the Sean Hannity Show. I think Hannity is a commentator , not a hard news reporter.

At the start of the clip, there is a fairly long and specific explanation of the upcoming interview offering various caveats to the voracity of the investigator's story.

However, after that intro, Hannity introduces the guy as being very reliable and apparently a fine fellow.

As a commentary show, the flames were then fanned and I got bored with it. I find commentary shows featuring ideologues to be tedious and predictable. Very hard to watch.

Was this story reported on FOX as actual news?
Click to expand...

Yes. Online definitely, on television I'm not sure except for the half dozen times it was "commentated on" by the likes of Gingrich and Hannity.

This was retracted, surprisingly. Surprising because they're Fox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom