Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#61

Post by selimthegrim »

rayiner wrote: post #45
mountainriver wrote: post #3

I used to really like CNN back in like 2010. Over the years its just become worse and worse to the point I don't read it anymore. It's basically turned into gossip news and is constantly skewing reality in favor of profits. I'm over it, and I think most other people are as well.

Man you missed CNN in the early 1990s. I used to watch Larry King interviews with my dad. He was so normal and direct and human.

Larry King went on SNL and did his show as a joke, and one of his mock commentaries to the camera was "Does anyone actually care that Pakistan has the Bomb?"

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#62

Post by gord288 »

selimthegrim wrote: post #60
tyingq wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was not-great stuff then too. Wolf Blitzer, for example, seemed to rise quickly and get a lot of air time mostly because he happened to be the one doing the remote reports from Baghdad in Desert Storm.

Wolf Blitzer was the one who observed off the cuff that the Katrina refugees he was seeing were "so poor, and so black"

Awkwardly worded and delivered, but it seems his observation was that Black residents were disproportionately negatively affected by Katrina. A perfectly valid point.

I am by no means a defender of Blitzer--his interviews and his framing of issues show him to be a banal thinker--but I feel he received a lot of undeserved criticism for this utterance. Which seemed at the time to mostly come from bad-faith actors like Rush Limbaugh, taking a cheap shot.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#63

Post by tootie »

jaywalk wrote: post #57
tootie wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's glib, but the meaning is that rational observation tends to strongly disfavor conservative views. Things like climate denial and supply-side economics that are tentpoles of conservatism consistently fail to hold up to any level of scrutiny. Modern American republicans are currently hanging their hats on completely farcical assertions that the 2020 election was stolen and Democrats are all pedophiles. When an out…

I understand what the phrase is trying to convey. It's literally just saying "I agree with things that conform to my biases" though. You have a liberal bias, and you think conservatives are wrong? Wow, that's a first! And vice-versa.

That's not what it means. It means that rational observation free of bias aligns more closely with liberal politics.

Per the examples given: Scientific observation says climate change is real, man-made and an urgent threat. Liberals agree, conservatives don't. Maybe not to a person and maybe not with 100% fidelity to the science but the trend is unmistakable.

Same for many other conservative fallacies like "tax cuts pay for themselves". We have data and know it isn't true. And current hot topics like election fraud. All the evidence says it's extremely rare. Liberals agree with the evidence, conservatives don't.

That's not the entirety of the political divide and there's plenty of subjective and philosophical arguments irrespective of evidence but when it comes to justifying policy, one side relies on evidence one doesn't.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#64

Post by gnicholas »

uoaei wrote: post #48
gnicholas wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every news source has an agenda. GP was asking for news sources that are not afraid to criticize political parties, and they are not. They even have a range of libertarian views, and they criticize each other/the libertarian party.

There are plenty others too. Many go further, to criticize corporations and even bare narratives! Below is a small sample, and none are aligned with any party in particular. Center for Public Integrity Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) Novara Media (UK-based) scheerpost.org (Chris Hedges's main outlet) Citations Needed Truthout.org In These Times Evonomics naked capitalism

Are any of these not aligned with the far-left? I didn't check them all, but none of them seems to be to the center of the Dems on the issues they cover. Perhaps I didn't dig deep enough?

It's possible that the commenter was asking for Dem/Repub-critical sources that are all aligned with one pole, but I interpreted the question as asking for sources whose coverage would not correlate with either party.

If you're going to criticize Reason for having an agenda, I would say that critique would apply equally to these sources as well. They seem very agenda driven (which doesn't make them bad)!

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#65

Post by dbbk »

sfblah wrote: post #7
mikeweiss wrote: post #2

Of course people aren't paying $6 a month for news, they really mis-calculated the audience for this. People who watch CNN already subscribe to cable (Traditional or OTT) It should've always just been an add on or included in HBO max for free to add additional value to that streaming platform. It's not too late, they could easily integrate it with HBO max to offer live news to all who subscribe.

My take on this was it was just a clone of the Fox News pay service. The CNN one would just be from a left-leaning perspective or some such. I bet if they market it better, it will do OK.

If you've seen anything from Chris Cillizza you wouldn't say CNN is left-leaning. Also, their major star of CNN+ is Chris Wallace who they poached from Fox News.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#66

Post by uoaei »

gnicholas wrote: post #64
uoaei wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty others too. Many go further, to criticize corporations and even bare narratives! Below is a small sample, and none are aligned with any party in particular. Center for Public Integrity Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) Novara Media (UK-based) scheerpost.org (Chris Hedges's main outlet) Citations Needed Truthout.org In These Times Evonomics naked capitalism

Are any of these not aligned with the far-left? I didn't check them all, but none of them seems to be to the center of the Dems on the issues they cover. Perhaps I didn't dig deep enough? It's possible that the commenter was asking for Dem/Repub-critical sources that are all aligned with one pole, but I interpreted the question as asking for sources whose coverage would not correlate with either party. If you're goin…

"Center" does not mean "rational" it just means "non-committal". Sometimes committing to certain viewpoints is rational, sometimes it is not.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#67

Post by gnicholas »

uoaei wrote: post #66
gnicholas wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are any of these not aligned with the far-left? I didn't check them all, but none of them seems to be to the center of the Dems on the issues they cover. Perhaps I didn't dig deep enough? It's possible that the commenter was asking for Dem/Repub-critical sources that are all aligned with one pole, but I interpreted the question as asking for sources whose coverage would not correlate with either party. If you're goin…

"Center" does not mean "rational" it just means "non-committal". Sometimes committing to certain viewpoints is rational, sometimes it is not.

Not sure what you're responding to. Is your list all far-left? Do you disagree that they're agenda-driven? You criticized my suggestion of Reason as having an agenda and then gave your list instead. I'm trying to understand in what way it is a better set of suggestions than a non-left/right oriented outlet like Reason.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#68

Post by padobson »

cableshaft wrote: post #19
xkbarkar wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally yeah. Agree. To me cnn is the exact same garbage as fox. Just leftist instead of rightist. I never click on any links to either media. Actually I used to line the guardian but in the past two years the quality of their reporting also just went alarmist and hyperbolic. In some cases blatantly inaccurate. Looking for a good news source currenty that arent afraid of critizicing any political party and their…

Breaking Points is a good option: https://www.youtube.com/c/breakingpoints They do have their own biases, but the dynamic is more conservative that hates the direction the GOP is going in (Saagar) and liberal progressive who is not a fan of the Democratic establishment (Krystal). As such neither one hesitates to call out what they disagree with for both Republicans and Democrats. They have an optional subscription se…

more conservative that hates the direction the GOP is going

I've heard other people say this, but I've never heard Saagar say anything I thought was conservative. He's not paleocon or libertarian because he's comfortable with big domestic government programs. He's not neocon because he spends a lot of time attacking big banks and big tech and he has been very critical of foreign military interventions. I've never heard him take a position on socially conservative issues like abortion or gay marriage. So what am I missing?

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#69

Post by selimthegrim »

gord288 wrote: post #62
selimthegrim wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wolf Blitzer was the one who observed off the cuff that the Katrina refugees he was seeing were "so poor, and so black"

Awkwardly worded and delivered, but it seems his observation was that Black residents were disproportionately negatively affected by Katrina. A perfectly valid point. I am by no means a defender of Blitzer--his interviews and his framing of issues show him to be a banal thinker--but I feel he received a lot of undeserved criticism for this utterance. Which seemed at the time to mostly come from bad-faith actors like…

The time to say that is not when the camera is panning across an extremely dark-skinned family wading.

Re: Big cuts coming for CNN+ after slow start

#70

Post by mrkstu »

tootie wrote: post #63
jaywalk wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand what the phrase is trying to convey. It's literally just saying "I agree with things that conform to my biases" though. You have a liberal bias, and you think conservatives are wrong? Wow, that's a first! And vice-versa.

That's not what it means. It means that rational observation free of bias aligns more closely with liberal politics. Per the examples given: Scientific observation says climate change is real, man-made and an urgent threat. Liberals agree, conservatives don't. Maybe not to a person and maybe not with 100% fidelity to the science but the trend is unmistakable. Same for many other conservative fallacies like "tax cuts…

No, both sides have different realities they don't like-

Reality Progressives don't like:

- Gender correlates with biology

- Giving chronically homeless people housing won't fix their homelessness

- Not charging serious crime won't lead to safer neighborhoods

- You can't fix societal disparities by changing who is at the top and bottom of a pyramid of privilege

- Demonizing the wealthy won't lead to any productive outcomes

- The amount of GDP consumed by government already should be manifestly sufficient to fix the things government is capable of addressing efficiently

- Universal Basic Income is a pipe dream with no mathematic or social basis in reality

- Getting rid of religiosity without replacing it with another moral foundation will lead to progressively worse societal outcomes (and progressive thought is in no way an adequate replacement)

- Shouting down unpopular opinion doesn't make those opinions go away

Reality conservatives don't like:

- Locking prisoners away for long periods leads to greater gangsterism and lifelong criminality

- Racial disparities, whatever their source, need to be addressed systemically for society to prosper

- Making huge changes to our atmospheric mix is 100% likely to lead to undesirable outcomes- the globe, and humans as part of it, will not prosper with large changes leading to unknowable outcomes in our biosphere

- Education is essential to social mobility

- Social safety nets are essential to social mobility

- Free markets are rarely free of defect and tend towards capture, either regulatory or monopolistic, and need frequent intervention to function efficiently

- Even if you've felt deceived by the media, making it a point of pride to doubt anything/everything you hear opens you up to those who will manipulate that doubt for their profit and power

Either way, the smugness both sides have in being sure they are the 'righteous/scientific' side only opens them up to lack of self-reflection on whether their side is correct on a particular issue. If you're sure that your 'sides' agenda is correct top to bottom, you've assuredly sold yourself a bill of goods.

Post reply on HN