(Dec 18, 2020 01:48 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ] (Dec 18, 2020 05:49 AM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ]Problem is that CNN is run and staffed by leftists, who are all willing to lose money to benefit their political agenda. "Get woke, go broke" is a saying because of how often they've proven they're willing to do it.
Even though it’s based on deceit and dishonesty it’s still a business with shareholders. Don’t think they want to go broke, especially now if CNN realizes they’ve become exactly what they railed against, no different than hippie movement. The generations grow up, some faster than others. Unless they get back to what they do best they will be in for hard times. Irony is they needed Trump to be profitable. I’d love to see them do an about face as it could promote a shift to the right. They have power, not sure if they know how much.
How about a rival news agency springing up and doing the same to Joe?
Patience. Biden isn’t immune from publishing industry
https://lithub.com/get-ready-for-a-wave-...den-books/
CNN's bias comes directly from its president, as undercover audio of their phone conferences has shown.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/202...rding-law/
CNN has consistently done worse than Fox News, under both Obama and Trump. So if they really wanted to compete, they've done so by now. Instead, they hire RINOs as if they legitimately represent conservative views. CNN is not a publicly traded company and:
CNN chief Jeff Zucker may be at war with Trump, but the new bosses at AT&T don’t mind
The NYT has already proven it will omit best selling books from its "best sellers" list, and without promotion, books critical of Democrats rarely get beyond a mostly Republican audience. They'll be published, and even do well, but they will not enter the awareness of the solely legacy media audience...except maybe being told they are propaganda.
There are plenty of new media outlets that already criticize Joe and the Democrats, many of which sprung up under Obama. Their reach has yet to match that of legacy media though...partially though biased search results from Google and outright censoring on social media (like the NYP story on Hunter Biden just before the election...which 10% said would have changed their vote).
(Dec 18, 2020 05:52 PM)Leigha Wrote: [ -> ]@ Syne, for some reason can't quote, but I hear you about scandal being more interesting than ''facts.'' That said, CNN provided a lot of scandal/opinion pieces, but suffered low ratings during Trump's term. So, perhaps, they need to return to integrity in their reporting, and that will boost their ratings?
No one likes an echo chamber. I guess some might, but overall, most people like differing opinions ...that makes news interesting. Imagine if Sci-Village acted as little more than an echo chamber. Very few people would visit. Sci-forums is an echo chamber, mainly spewing biased ''facts,'' and that is why many have left.
CNN only seemed to suffer low ratings in comparison with Fox News, but they did better under Trump than under Obama. As an example:
In 2009, during the first full week after the inauguration, as tracked by Nielsen (Jan. 26-Feb. 1), Fox News averaged 2.4 million viewers in prime time and 1.3 million viewers in total day. CNN averaged 1.1 million viewers in prime time and 776,000 viewers in total day, while MSNBC averaged 968,000 viewers in prime time and 488,000 in total day.
In 2017, during the first full week after the inauguration (Jan. 23-29), Fox News averaged 3.4 million viewers in prime time and 2.0 million in total day, while CNN averaged 1.2 million viewers in prime time and 897,000 in total day. MSNBC averaged 1.4 million viewers in prime time and 781,000 in total day.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/t...ngs-234513
Even under Obama, CNN only pretended to have integrity and be objective journalism (as they avoided any criticism or scandals), and so many people see through it nowadays that they're not likely to recover their credibility.
Due to personal bias, people largely do not seek out news sources and opinions that differ from their own. They find what is convenient, like legacy media, and it immediately confirms what they already think, so they feel they have a good grasp on the world. And many on the left who do seek out different views only do so for ammunition they can distort to affirm their existing views. Like I've said many times, the right cannot help but be aware of leftist views, as they are expressed throughout entertainment and legacy media. So the right doesn't have any motive in learning opposing views.
And while many people do find echo chambers on forums boring, there's still plenty of regular and semi-regular posters at SciForums. Many more than here. That's because many people like knowing that moderation will essentially do their bidding, just like they expect big government to do.
(Dec 18, 2020 06:23 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]Actually Scivillage could use some genuine left cheerleaders -- can't expect MR and C2 to carry the burden.
They're obviously not mentally/intellectually up to the task. But then, those on SciForums do no better. When pressed they either avoid or rely on others to provide a facade of widespread agreement (argument ad populum).