I have differentiated between the two, in this thread and others. Agenda driven news is a distinct, quantifiable thing that is easily spotted. It's taught in journalism school and journalism classes, how to easily spot it and how to avoid it, and it has been for decades. You think it's the exact same thing as a news bias. And you're wrong. I don't know any other way to put it than that. Every single example of agenda driven news you've presented has not been an example of agenda driven news. They have all been examples of bias, or someone else's opinion that it's agenda driven news.
You've just used an opinion, an incorrect one at that, as the basis for your argument. That's a logical fallacy. For one, CNN doesn't have a non-stop drum beat of bashing conservatives. As I noted earlier, conservatives see a bias in every news story that doesn't promote the conservative viewpoint, regardless of whether there is actually a bias present. As I also noted earlier, calling them biased isn't enough to demonize them, you have to embellish and exaggerate by calling them an agenda driven news network when they aren't. I also think you never even heard the term "agenda driven news" until you read it from me on these boards.
Of course I can. But I'm not going to argue someone else's opinion with someone who doesn't have an opinion of their own, because they (that's you) are in no position to defend the opinions of someone else. Plus, in this thread and in others, every time I have refuted Brietbart's points, you simply ignore it and trudge along like I never said anything, feverishly Googling to come up with a, "Oh yeah! Well whatabout this!"
That's so retarded that it's Special Olympics-funny. Breitbart was even singled out by CQ Research as being a shining example of a straight-up conservative agenda driven news Blog that exists to further the conservative agenda by, among other things, pointing out liberal bias in the MSM by seeing liberal bias in everything presented by the MSM.
Wow. That last sentence really convinced me that you know what agenda driven news is and have all along, and that I clearly don't have clue about any of this stuff. I bow to your superior intellect, reasoning and knowledge.
Yes you did. With a surprising link to Breitbart about it. And I commented on it.
You are going to make him give an explanation and actually articulate his own thinking ?
It's not that he is a liberal, or even that he is a 'partisan'. It's that he exhibited such an extremist view about a political party he opposes, that even the liberal news website Yahoo News thought they should fire him. But he's A ok with CNN, because they are all about 'trust' when they present the news.
Yahoo didn't fire him because of his views, extremist or otherwise, they fired him because of his comments.
Oh, I read it. The problem is, he wasn't talking about the entire GOP, as you have claimed, he was talking specifically about Mitt and Ann Romney.
Comments by him that happen to be extreme. Even the liberal news site Yahoo couldn't let that one get by.
Right. Like I said, "liberal is OK, and partisan is OK, as long as you're not toooo partisan, and as long as you keep it to yourself." No real need to reword it, as I got it the first time. I even said so at the time.
The entire purpose of a Headline is to get people to read the story. The headline, and what is said in the story, are in conflict. That doesn't mean the headline is correct, it's just another example out of countless examples of shoddy journalism to be found at HuffPo. And they're not left leaning at all, they're full-tilt boogie agenda driven. The Pew Research Center found that 86% of their political articles were left-learning, 8% were right-leaning, and 6% were neutral. They found agenda driven news comprised 74% of their political articles (which of course includes the subsections of WorldPost, Green, Black Voices, Latino Voices and Gay Voices). CG Researcher found nearly identical numbers. Huffington Post was one of CQ Researcher's highlighted for-profit agenda driven news outlets.
Right. He's toooo partisan, and they put a partisan liberal in charge of their political news. Still got it. The rest of that paragraph (everything between the "B" and the period) is nothing more than a belief, one without any evidence to support it. If you could just point to one example of where Chalian, as their Political News Director, injected his views into any news show on CNN, then you'd have a valid argument. If you could show one example of where an agenda influenced Chalian's decisions, as their Political News Director, in deciding which stories to cover, as long as the story is actually newsworthy and not an issue of a conservative agenda, then you'd have a valid argument. To qualify, the story has to be news, it has to be newsworthy, and it has to be of a political nature. Keeping in mind, of course, what may be "news of note" to conservatives isn't necessarily newsworthy. Please don't make me educate you on what is and is not newsworthy.
OK, Trump is newsworthy, generally speaking, at least within the context of his political campaign. And he makes himself available to them (unlike Fox News), so they cover him. A lot. CNN has had more Trump coverage than the other Republican candidates, and the Democratic candidates, combined. The problem for many political and media analysts has been in the quantity of coverage and how it has potentially aided Trump’s climb to the top spot in the GOP field. Democrats don't like it, the other Republicans don't like it.
A) Not news. You're describing a talk and opinion show, not news. B) Even at that, you have failed utterly to show where Chalian, as their Political News Director, injected his views into any the show, much less into any news show. C) You're actually more accurately describing how Fox News treats Trump and other (non-favored) politicians, not CNN.
Except that hasn't happened, either. I think you're seeing bias where it doesn't even exist. They certainly favor Hilary, and by default Sanders, because they're mostly liberal, but they don't report on Trump in the most negative way possible. They'e not gonna stump for him and fawn over him like they did with Obama, but just because they don't doesn't mean it's part of an agenda, Chalian's or anyone else.
And you know this how, exactly?
In the bad news department, supporters of Carson's campaign are wasting their money, if they think he has any realistic shot of actually being elected as POTUS.