> Although it's unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan's President, a violation of the US's agreement with China's "One China policy". China publicly voiced their disapproval of that incident and contacted the White House at the time.
It's been something of a trope on the (alt)right to rip on CNN. It's up there with NYT and WaPo in terms of ire drawn.
Specifically, the news clip of a CNN anchor saying its illegal to read WikiLeaks is often held up as some trump card that CNN is has lost 100% credibility on everything.
Counterpoint: the continued employment of Wolf Blitzer, The Worst News Anchor In Human History.
All joking aside, CNN is basically TV clickbait, and they're consistently terrible at actual journalism. Their news coverage is basically talking heads that read out the wire service updates for you.
I may disagree with the editorial bent of some of the other news outlets but at least they're competent, provide some context of what a story means, etc. That's really the value-add in journalism versus just having AP Wire provide an RSS feed.
US media is pretty much trash in general though, BBC and Al Jazeera English are where it's at (just don't look to AJE for any hard-hitting coverage of Qatari issues, they won't touch them). Not Al Jazeera America though, they were always terrible compared to AJE's coverage.
The best way to I've found to collapse this type of deflection, without angering the person, is just to ask them which part of the article in question is biased and wrong, because it causes them to start thinking critically about the information whereas before they weren't even considering it.
i.e. Did China really not say that they captured a submersible drone? Is CNN making up information about what China is saying now? etc.
Yes, it is editorializing. It's also clearly prefixed as such to distinguish it from factual data. It's a valid and possible conclusion as to the motivations for China's actions, given their prior statements and lack of statements regarding this incident.
Would the article be better for leaving out any international political context? I think most people would agree that international politics are at play here, and a good news organization will attempt to help with what might be happening so the layman might understand. You might not agree with their assessment (you haven't actually stated whether you think Trump's statements played any part), but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be there.
I just looked up the breitbart coverage (two articles?[1][2]) of this story, and to my eyes, it seems a bit odd that it doesn't include any context as to possible reasons why. RT[3] actually has a fairly fleshed out article[3], and implies a different reasoning, which is that there's posturing over the waters there specifically. It was published a few hours after the other ones though. NBC[4] seems the most balanced so far. It mentions Trump, but as just one of a few tense exchanges, points out it's not a major thing, it's just unprofessional, and that it actually wasn't that close to the disputed area. It's also only 20 minutes old, apparently.
Different outlets and even just article authors will have different takes on the news. This may change over time as stories develop. It's not out of place to look for what you think is relevant and include it in the article, as long as items that are facts are presented as such and sourced, and items that are opinion are presented accordingly as well.
Well, I will fully admit that's not what I expected or want to see in a credible paper, but it in itself does not actually affect the credibility. It's purely a flavor and opinion piece, and is not actually stating any facts.
It does make you wonder about the credibility, but without anything concrete to point to where they were wrong, I would just hold it up as a mistake and in poor taste.
Giving credence to whether or not a black hole was the cause of MH370 disappearing (bonus points: its crazy only because 'a small black hole would suck in our entire universe', according to the expert):
Comparing CNN to the New York Times or Washington Post is ridiculous. No matter how much bias those publications might have, at least they don't have just generally -bad- reporting. I actually encourage anyone to watch an entire day of CNN to see if you can even bear it.
What I'm saying is that there's a difference between credible and good. It's entirely possible to believe CNN will deliver facts credibly but their editorializing will be crap. A source is credible when you can trust that the facts they are presenting are checked and correct, and their opinions are at least plausible. That's doesn't seem like a high standard, but unfortunately some sources are having a hard time meeting it. It's just not the major ones having that problem, as has been insinuated. I've debunked more than a few alt-right news blogs stories in the last few months, and the difference is stark. Opinions in one blog reported as fact in another. Completely reading numbers in a spreadsheet wrong when presenting a summary and assessment (that or it was purposefully misrepresented). Basic facts completely wrong.
It's fine to point out that CNN is crap, and their editorializing sucks. But let's not go so far as to say they aren't credible without real evidence, because that puts them on same field as some of these other "news" sites, and there's still a world of difference between them.
> Comparing CNN to the New York Times or Washington Post is ridiculous.
I didn't do that. Perhaps you are mixing up a different thread with this one?
> Giving credence to whether or not a black hole was the cause of MH370 disappearing
I don't think that's what they were doing. They used a rhetoric of acceptance to bring up the subject so it could be addressed. If people are bring up crap theories online, addressing them quickly and definitively in the negative is just what I think they should have done. Sure, she overreached on the black-hole thing, but I think the segment served a purpose. It just wasn't aimed at you or me.
> Although it's unclear what the motivation was for the Chinese, the seizing of the drone comes on the heels of other provocative incidents that have happened since President-elect Donald Trump received a congratulatory call with Taiwan's President, a violation of the US's agreement with China's "One China policy". China publicly voiced their disapproval of that incident and contacted the White House at the time.