CNN guest calls CNN fake news

[SmokeAndMirrors]

OMG. How incredible. Now, after just posting journalistic ethics, you say I just don't understand journalism.

Go harass someone else. It has become impossible to dialogue with you of late.

Well, you don't. :shrug: And you clearly can't defend how you do, otherwise you'd have done so. Pointing out objective facts to you is "harassment" now?

Fact is, Dennard lied. Fact is, Lemon has a journalistic obligation to correct lies. Fact is, there's nothing about facilitating other people's opinions based on a fact that is at odds with the ethical obligations of a journalist to be truthful.

And you can't defend your denial of any of those things. That's not "harassment." That's you failing to make a logical argument.

 

[Paperview]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

Editorializing is not purely for entertainment. It is about allowing the people to hear and share various argumentations or philosophies about our governance. Our public square, if you will. How we change our governance is decided by opinion, so this is rather important.

If that's not part of what journalism does, then explain to me why almost every newspaper, TV news program, and news website in existence for the past several centuries has had an Op/Ed section.

....

You simply don't understand what journalism is...

This exchange speaks volumes:

Originally Posted by haymarket
Where do you get the impression that a 24/7/365 news and information channel is only suppose to report news and not discuss it or talk about it?"

They can discuss it, opine on it, editorialize on it all they want. But that is not reporting news.

It would have been nice if she actually understood the question, and responded to it.

 

[Paperview]

Did I say left or right?

I said ALL news....
...

I never implied you did. I was simply reminding the readers of this thread, who seem to be confounded about News channels that carry opinion, and are somehow demanding they stick to reporting the news

-- that the longtime favorite of conservatives, Fox NEWS -- is 90% opinion.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

This exchange speaks volumes:

It would have been nice if she actually understood the question, and responded to it.

It reminds me of that bizarre moment during the Trump press conference where he said the leaked info was real, but the news was fake. Like... how does that work?

Somehow, news channels can editorialize, but they also can't editorialize. What? :lol:

Do they hear themselves?

 

[iguanaman]

Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it.

To others, shutting the guy off and never really letting him speak again while insulting and attacking is just more evidence of CNN's extreme bias and fraud filled efforts.

A professional doing his job would have allowed the guy to make the comment and remained calm, moving on to the next of the 4 guests.

Instead, the idiot blows a gasket and proves what people are saying about CNN.

It proves nothing except that insults hurt. I think Trump is a fake President.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I'm no fan of Don Lemon's but he was absolutely right and his definition of "fake news" was correct. The story about the cost Of Trump's trips is not fake news. I think it is trivial an unimportant news, but not fake.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I'm no fan of Don Lemon's but he was absolutely right and his definition of "fake news" was correct. The story about the cost Of Trump's trips is not fake news. I think it is trivial an unimportant news, but not fake.

I kind of disagree that it's trivial. It's certainly not the most important thing in the world, but it matters in that it's negatively impacting the ability of local businesses to function and survive. Since it's impacting the livelihood of some citizens, it's worth addressing.

 

[MaggieD]

Well, you don't. :shrug: And you clearly can't defend how you do, otherwise you'd have done so. Pointing out objective facts to you is "harassment" now?

Fact is, Dennard lied. Fact is, Lemon has a journalistic obligation to correct lies. Fact is, there's nothing about facilitating other people's opinions based on a fact that is at odds with the ethical obligations of a journalist to be truthful.

And you can't defend your denial of any of those things. That's not "harassment." That's you failing to make a logical argument.

Fact: Dennard didn't lie. Fact: Journalism isn't editorializing. Fact: In that segment, Lemon was functioning as an entertainer, not a journalist. Fact: Your bolded sentence makes no sense. Fact: You are not pointing out objective facts. You are expressing your opinion. Learn the difference because this is the whole basis of our disagreement.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Fact: Dennard didn't lie. Fact: Journalism isn't editorializing. Fact: In that segment, Lemon was functioning as an entertainer, not a journalist. Fact: Your bolded sentence makes no sense. Fact: You are not pointing out objective facts. You are expressing your opinion. Learn the difference because this is the whole basis of our disagreement.

Yes, he did. He said the story was fake, when it isn't. If he DIDN'T mean that the story was fake, then he was lying about the definition of the word "fake."

Journalism has included editorializing for literally all of time. You're wrong. Provided it is based on correct information, clearly noted as opinion, and accountable to the public (including by facilitating their opinions), there is nothing about editorializing that contradicts journalistic ethics. There never has been at any point in all of history. Never.

Lemon functioned as facilitator for democratic discussion and gave Dennard a perfectly neutral opening question. He literally just asked him what he thought. It doesn't get more neutral than that. He could have said, "I think this is trivial and requires no action." That would have been a legitimate response. But instead, he lied about the basic definition of basic English words.

Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Dennard.

My sentence is grammatical and clearly referencing the paragraph immediately before it. If you can't understand it, that's a reading problem on your end. Perhaps your unwillingness to read is why you also don't get what journalism is.

 

[Fishking]

looks to me like Don Lemon did his job. he didn't let the "fake news" dodge / talking point slide, and pinned down the guest on it pretty effectively.

No he didn't. He didn't even let the person talk, thereby giving said person more credibility. CNN, a global news organization, just proved themselves to be petty and petulant children who took their ball and went home.

 

[Fishking]

The whole fake news claims from Trump is addressed quite effectively by McCain in this response to "Meet the Press"

McCain is a giant piece of warmongering **** that many Service Members, like myself, hate. He doesn't care about anything but defense contract profits. He's a damned traitor to those who serve and cares nothing for their lives.

 

[Paperview]

Fact: Dennard didn't lie. Fact: Journalism isn't editorializing. Fact: In that segment, Lemon was functioning as an entertainer, not a journalist. Fact: Your bolded sentence makes no sense.

Every single one of your "Facts" -- are not.

Fact: You are not pointing out objective facts. You are expressing your opinion. Learn the difference because this is the whole basis of our disagreement.

Irony enough to make the eyes bleed.

 

[washunut]

Yes, he did. He said the story was fake, when it isn't. If he DIDN'T mean that the story was fake, then he was lying about the definition of the word "fake."

Journalism has included editorializing for literally all of time. You're wrong. Provided it is based on correct information, clearly noted as opinion, and accountable to the public (including by facilitating their opinions), there is nothing about editorializing that contradicts journalistic ethics. There never has been at any point in all of history. Never.

Lemon functioned as facilitator for democratic discussion and gave Dennard a perfectly neutral opening question. He literally just asked him what he thought. It doesn't get more neutral than that. He could have said, "I think this is trivial and requires no action." That would have been a legitimate response. But instead, he lied about the basic definition of basic English words.

Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Dennard.

My sentence is grammatical and clearly referencing the paragraph immediately before it. If you can't understand it, that's a reading problem on your end. Perhaps your unwillingness to read is why you also don't get what journalism is.

Not sure you are correct here. He said it was fake NEWS. In that the story was not news. Just BS anti- Trump hate. Not sure many Lemon supporters will deny that Lemon has been a hater for months on end.

Now if he wants to acknowledge that he is an opinion person like Hannity or Matthews that is fine. To call him a newsperson at this point is a stretch. Same as an editorial writer for a newspaper. There they readily acknowledge the difference. Not sure why some here don't do the same for Lemon.

 

[Helix]

By lying to his guest commentator. He promised him he would let him speak. THen didn't. Why?

i saw a host shutting down a dishonest guest. was that the best way to handle it? that's up for debate. when he got shut down, he was repeating his script, so i suppose that's part of why Lemon cut him off.

 

[MaggieD]

Yes, he did. He said the story was fake, when it isn't. If he DIDN'T mean that the story was fake, then he was lying about the definition of the word "fake."

Journalism has included editorializing for literally all of time. You're wrong. Provided it is based on correct information, clearly noted as opinion, and accountable to the public (including by facilitating their opinions), there is nothing about editorializing that contradicts journalistic ethics. There never has been at any point in all of history. Never.

Lemon functioned as facilitator for democratic discussion and gave Dennard a perfectly neutral opening question. He literally just asked him what he thought. It doesn't get more neutral than that. He could have said, "I think this is trivial and requires no action." That would have been a legitimate response. But instead, he lied about the basic definition of basic English words.

Those are all objectively true things. You have done nothing but lie about them, just like Dennard.

My sentence is grammatical and clearly referencing the paragraph immediately before it. If you can't understand it, that's a reading problem on your end. Perhaps your unwillingness to read is why you also don't get what journalism is.

Editorializing directly contradicts journalistic ethics. You're right about at least one thing, Lemon was functioning as a facilitator, not a journalist. Dennard did not lie. He didn't even get to finish his thought because your "objective journalist" cut him off.
Please show me a link that proves your so-called fact that good journalism involves editorializing.

Editorializing won Elise Labott a two-week suspension from CNN when she tweeted this:

House passes bill that could limit Syrian Refugees. Statue of Liberty bows head in anguish.

Followed by

Everyone, It was wrong of me to editorialize. My tweet was inappropriate and disrespectful. I sincerely apologize.

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/tag/editorializing/

And when your argument includes calling me a liar, I'd say it's pretty piss poor. You?

 

[Paperview]

ICYMI:

More of that segment:

 

[MaggieD]

McCain is a giant piece of warmongering **** that many Service Members, like myself, hate. He doesn't care about anything but defense contract profits. He's a damned traitor to those who serve and cares nothing for their lives.

Wow. This is hard to believe.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Not sure you are correct here. He said it was fake NEWS. In that the story was not news. Just BS anti- Trump hate. Not sure many Lemon supporters will deny that Lemon has been a hater for months on end.

Now if he wants to acknowledge that he is an opinion person like Hannity or Matthews that is fine. To call him a newsperson at this point is a stretch. Same as an editorial writer for a newspaper. There they readily acknowledge the difference. Not sure why some here don't do the same for Lemon.

"Fake news" means the story isn't real. This story is real.

Your opinion that it is not news worthy is an opinion. The fact is that it objectively happened. "News" are recently occurring facts that are reported by journalists. This is a recently occurring fact reported by a journalist.

He isn't giving an opinion. He was asking the opinion of others. The fact that the story is not fake isn't an opinion.

There is no such thing as an "editorial writer" for a newspaper. Editorials are published without a name, representing the entirety of the editorial staff ("editorial" meaning "the editors of the news organization"). They are often written by the editor-in-chief (EIC), although may be written by others on the editorial board.

I would know. I wrote enough of the things when I was an EIC of a newspaper.

I really wish people would learn how journalism works before trying to tell me how journalism works.

 

[reinoe]

i saw a host shutting down a dishonest guest. was that the best way to handle it? that's up for debate. when he got shut down, he was repeating his script, so i suppose that's part of why Lemon cut him off.

It was an opinion discussion panel, he should have let his guest state his opinion. Don went on a rant about WHATE FAKE NEWS IS, which in and itself completely subjective and irrelevant, and then shut down his guests opinion. It's like Don Lemon want to be the moderator and the guest all at once. He's ****ing terrible.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Editorializing directly contradicts journalistic ethics. You're right about at least one thing, Lemon was functioning as a facilitator, not a journalist. Dennard did not lie. He didn't even get to finish his thought because your "objective journalist" cut him off.
Please show me a link that proves your so-called fact that good journalism involves editorializing.

Editorializing won Elise Labott a two-week suspension from CNN when she tweeted this:

Followed by

https://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/tag/editorializing/

And when your argument includes calling me a liar, I'd say it's pretty piss poor. You?

No it doesn't. Editorials are a standard part of almost every free news organization on earth. Nothing in your little Wiki definition says editorials can't be used, provided they are based on facts and accountable to the people. You're simply wrong.

Furthermore, Lemon didn't editorialize. He gave the definition of a basic English word. Words do have objective meanings, you know.

It was unnecessary for Lemon to let him continue talking, because he had already told a lie that required correction. The story was not fake according to the damn English language.

What Labott did has nothing in common with what Lemon did. Lemon gave a definition for an English word. Labott gave her opinion on a story she was reporting on, which is a big no-no in the journalistic world. She deserved her suspension.

It is factually true that you lied, so no, I don't think it's poor. It's correct.

 

[MaggieD]

Every single one of your "Facts" -- are not.

Irony enough to make the eyes bleed.

When did Dennard lie? To say that a journalists job is to editorialize must mean you and S&M don't know what the word means. Lemon was absolutely NOT functioning as a journalist by facilitating that panel. And, respectfully, you add NOTHING to this discussion by simply stating, in effect, "You're wrong."

Sorry about your eyes.

 

[Helix]

It was an opinion discussion panel, he should have let his guest state his opinion. Don went on a rant about WHATE FAKE NEWS IS, which in and itself completely subjective and irrelevant, and then shut down his guests opinion.

his guest was repeating his script when he got cut off. was that the best way to handle it? as i said, that's debatable.

 

[RAMOSS]

McCain is a giant piece of warmongering **** that many Service Members, like myself, hate. He doesn't care about anything but defense contract profits. He's a damned traitor to those who serve and cares nothing for their lives.

Yet, when it comes to what he says here, that a free press that is quite often adversarial is right on the money

 

[reinoe]

his guest was repeating his script when he got cut off. was that the best way to handle it? as i said, that's debatable.

Actually it looks like Don Lemon was the one reading from a script. The definition of "fake news" is subjective and I think it's remarkable that Don Lemon is now trying to define what "fake news" contains. Lot's of panelists follow a script, but the hosts moreso. When you see a bunch of hosts all parotting the same talking points they are also reading from a script. The one time Don Lemon feels the need to shut down a discussion is when CNN is being criticized, otherwise CNN is more than happy to allow people all the time they need to read their scriptures.

 

[reinoe]

No it doesn't. Editorials are a standard part of almost every free news organization on earth. Nothing in your little Wiki definition says editorials can't be used, provided they are based on facts and accountable to the people. You're simply wrong.

Furthermore, Lemon didn't editorialize. He gave the definition of a basic English word. Words do have objective meanings, you know.

It was unnecessary for Lemon to let him continue talking, because he had already told a lie that required correction. The story was not fake according to the damn English language.

What Labott did has nothing in common with what Lemon did. Lemon gave a definition for an English word. Labott gave her opinion on a story she was reporting on, which is a big no-no in the journalistic world. She deserved her suspension.

It is factually true that you lied, so no, I don't think it's poor. It's correct.

"FAKE NEWS" is not a word. There is no definition. So that right there is false.