The Instigator
Buckwheat6105
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
SteelPelican
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

CNN is not fake news

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
SteelPelican
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 950 times Debate No: 108198
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

Buckwheat6105

Pro

Since the 2016 election, a lot of people on the right assert CNN is fake news. CNN has never been proven to publish fake news. If you do not agree with my position, let"s discuss!
SteelPelican

Con

Hello, I'll be accepting your debate.
I will claim that CNN does publish fake news.
Because your claim is "CNN has never been proven to publish fake news.", I must prove only one case where CNN has published "fake news".

Fake News- News which is either completely false, has multiple false aspects, or is meant to mislead the viewer.

Arguement:

1. The Koi Pond

During Trump's visit to Japan, CNN posted a video showing Trump dumping a box of fish food into the water. View the video here:
https://twitter.com...

This news circulated, with everybody criticizing Trump, and blaming him for overfeeding fish. What the video doesn't show, is the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe dumping his box in the water first. View the video (By "The Guardian") here:


This news was meant to mislead the viewers, and therefore is fake news.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 1
Buckwheat6105

Pro

First, we need to agree on the definition of fake news. Fake news is defined as false or misleading information published with the intent to deliver misinformation.

Just because something is false or misleading, doesn"t necessarily make it fake news, or a lie.

Intent matters & must be proven.

Now that we know we need to prove intent to deliver a guilty verdict, out of the thousands of news reports on Trump, the initial evidence provided is limited to CNN"s reporting on Trump dumping an entire box of food into a koi pond, implying Trump was impatient.

The CNN article you linked includes the following quote: "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump." You can read the article within the video you sourced.

By including the aforementioned information, the CNN news report on Trump feeding koi is definitely miscaptioned, but doesn"t meet the low standard of fake news because intent is not proven.
SteelPelican

Con

While Pro agrees that fake news is false or misleading, they claim that intent of spreading false or fake news must be proven, a Mens Rea of sorts.
(You honestly should have posted your definition in round 1, so we could have these rounds to further debate.)
Pro also says I must have intent.

The intention of this was to discredit Trump, attempting to show that he thinks himself better then Abe (As the people only see Abe spooning in food, not dumping it out.), and that he is bigoted.

Now, Pro says the CNN article claims, "The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump."
This is true, however this is not shown in the twitter post. In a day and age where people use social media for news, this information should be included. Anyone who looks at CNN's twitter and see this will just see the tweet and a cropped out video, and I assure you 95% of the people did not go and read the full article.
The purpose was still to mislead, as what really happened was hidden away in the article, and not displayed in the tweet.

Also, Mens Rea goes both ways.
- Why did they crop out Shinzo Abe dumping out food? Why not include the full video, and avoid all of this? They obviously did it intentionally, zooming in on Trump completely to cut Abe out of the picture.
- Why even make news of this?
- Why caption/label it the way they did?

Even though they included the sentence about Abe "appearing" to dump out food, the overall purpose was still to mislead readers.


Debate Round No. 2
Buckwheat6105

Pro

I presumed you knew the difference between false, or misleading, news and fake news. Just as you probably know the difference between a mistake and deception (i.e. a lie).

If the intention of article was to discredit Trump, you need to provide factual evidence. If you can't then it's nothing more than conjecture. Please stick to the facts and if you're going to make any claims, please provide evidence.

The twitter post reads "Trump joined his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe in feeding fish, emptying the whole box of food into a koi pond."

In fact, Trump was with Abe, he was feeding fish and he indeed emptied a box of food into a koi pond. If these are facts, it's impossible for it to be fake news. Facts and fake news are mutually exclusive.

Let's move forward into the article itself:

"President Donald Trump took a moment out of his whirlwind Japanese trip to connect with nature and feed some fish, but after a few delicate scoops, he resorted to a grand gesture met with some laughter. The moment happened as Trump and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe headed to lunch. The leaders were escorted to a dining room that overlooks a koi pond at Akasaka Palace. Moments later, aides opened two large screen doors and the leaders emerged holding two small wooden boxes filled with fish food. As an aide clapped loudly, Abe and Trump tossed spoonfuls of fish food into the pond. Then, with a look of enjoyment, Trump quickly poured his entire box of food into the pond. The move got Trump some laughs, and a smile from Abe, who actually appeared to dump out his box of food ahead of Trump. The two leaders then sat down for lunch. Trump was at Tokyo's Imperial Palace for a greeting with Japan's 83-year-old Emperor Akihito before settling down for meetings and lunch with Abe, who has become Trump's closest partner in Asia as he confronts an increasingly hostile North Korea. The two men spent much of Sunday at informal engagements in and around Tokyo, lunching on hamburgers at an exclusive country club before playing nine holes of golf. In the evening they were joined by their wives for dinner at a high-end eatery in the Ginza district. In his public appearances so far, Trump has sought to cast himself as a highly successful chief executive, touting the US economy while taking credit for a streak of hiring by American companies."

Aside from a few adjectives, this is all objective and factual...so, again, it doesn't meet the standard of fake news.

When objectively looking at the tweet, title, article and video, CNN stuck to the facts...they did not include personal sentiment, opinion or anything that can be viewed as subjective. As for CNN focusing on Trump, he's our president. They're reporting on him feeding fish (as absurd as that sounds...but you choose this example).

You mention 95% of the people didn't read the full article. Please provide evidence. If i made the claim '95% of readers actually read the article' you'd ask me to provide evidence. Again, please stick to the facts.

As for the video itself, and why it was used, you need to understand how journalism works. For the tweet, the video content was provided by a CNN photo journalist...the person behind the camera was employed by CNN (we know this because the video is uncredited). The video used in the article was taken by Jim Watson. Jim, who is employed by Agency Franc-Presse, sold the video to CNN via Getty Images. We know this because he is credited with the video within the article. If you're not familiar with Getty Images, it's a stock photo agency that most, if not all, major news networks use when needing photos and videos for their news articles.

Back to Twitter....since Twitter is used to report the news contemporaneously you would have to prove the photojournalist, the journalists (Kevin Liptak and Veronica Rocha) and the editor all conspired to make the president look bad. Since they didn't know Trump was going to dump the food, and twitter is used contemporaneously, they would have needed to conspire almost immediately and acted within seconds. However, this conspiracy is proven false since CNN purchased the video from Getty and actually used it...talk about one bad oiled conspiracy machine.

So to say CNN tweeted that to intentionally discredit Trump, with the aforementioned elements in place, is inaccurate.

To answer the questions you asked:
- Why did they crop out Shinzo Abe dumping out food? It wasn't cropped. Two different photo journalists.

-Why not include the full video, and avoid all of this? Because they didn't purchase the Getty Image until after the fact and in order to quickly report on the event, they used the CNN photo journalist's video. Again, CNN's photo journalist didn't know Trump was going to dump the food so zooming in on him (again, before he dumped the food) was arbitrary and innocent.

- Why even make news of this? Question for another debate....but, again, this is the example you decided to use.

- Why caption/label it the way they did? I agree, it could have been captioned differently, but it's not 'fake news.'

-Even though they included the sentence about Abe "appearing" to dump out food, the overall purpose was still to mislead readers. You still haven't provided evidence of intent. You're argument is based on theory and subjective speculation. If I were to make a claim, it would be fair for you to ask me to provide evidence.

Again, 'fake news' is the publication of false information with the INTENT to mislead the reader.
SteelPelican

Con

To address Pro's first sentence: During a debate, if a specific term or word is vital to the debate, a definition is always recommended or necessary, no matter what you presume.

CNN seeks to discredits Trump
Pro further states that I must provide evidence to show CNN seeks to discredit Trump.
While I don't have a PR statement from CNN claiming they aim to discredit Trump (Just like a drug dealer wouldn't tell a police officer they sell drugs), I have the next best thing. Statistics.
-
Just looking at part of a single day, a team of researchers records how much CNN looks at the presidency.
https://www.newsbusters.org...
The result was spending 12 hours and 19 minutes over the presidency, while only spending 1 hour and 8 minutes on other news. This is clearly near obsession of the President. Yes, he is our President, but there is only 1 hour and 8 minutes of news not relating to him?
-
We can take this a step further with more studies.
From the Washington Times, a study was taken to see how much news outlets spent talking negatively/positively about Trump. (They also talk about the study in my previous link)
https://www.washingtontimes.com...
The result was that 93% of Trump-related news negative, while only 7% positive.
"And CNN? The Harvard researchers found CNN"s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, 7 percent positive. "Trump"s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity," wrote the authors of the Harvard study."
The article continues, saying,
"“Looking just at CNN’s own on-air talent, the results were even more tilted, with 69 appearances by anti-Trump analysts, vs. just two for pro-Trump analysts,” MRC wrote."
-
But we can take this yet another step further, by comparing it to previous presidents. The article also states,
"When the Chosen One, Barack Obama, completed his first 100 days, a similar study found that coverage was 59 percent positive, 41 percent negative."
-
So, Obama has a 56% - 41% positive/negative news ratio, while Trump has a 7% - 93% positive/negative news ratio.
If that doesn't scream bias and hate, I don't know what does.
Furthermore, CNN has had appearances by 69 anti-Trump analysts vs 2 pro-Trump analysts.
This shows bias and hate. CNN has been trying to discredit Trump since he announced his running for presidency, and this koi fish situation is no different.

Fact vs Fake
Pro Claims:
"In fact, Trump was with Abe, he was feeding fish and he indeed emptied a box of food into a koi pond. If these are facts, it's impossible for it to be fake news. Facts and fake news are mutually exclusive."
He also claims,
"Aside from a few adjectives, this is all objective and factual...so, again, it doesn't meet the standard of fake news."
-
In this quote, Pro contradicts his prior statement. Beforehand he claimed, "Fake news is defined as false or misleading information published with the intent to deliver misinformation."
According to this definition of fake news, publishing misleading information with the intent to mislead is fake news.
-
Now you claim that if it has facts, it is not fake news. No. If these facts are made and displayed to mislead viewers, it is fake news.
(Third time the definition has changed, this is why you define things in the beginning)

Twitter and CNN.com
Pro Claims:
"You mention 95% of the people didn't read the full article. Please provide evidence. If i made the claim '95% of readers actually read the article' you'd ask me to provide evidence. Again, please stick to the facts."
-
While admittedly I can't determine the exact number, I can give a rough estimate.
According to CNN, CNN.com had around 122 million visitors this January.
http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com...
-
They currently have about 39.5 Million Twitter followers. (Not going to link their twitter, just check if you don't believe me)
-
So if we take the 122 million vistors in January, and divide it by 31, the number of days in January, we get a rough total of about 3.9 million people on the site each day. If we divide the 39.5 million followers by 3.9 million, we get 10.13% of followers going on CNN, showing that 89.87% of followers didn't go on CNN.
-
This is obviously a very rough estimate (Not determining how many followers saw the post, how many people went on CNN.com but not on the article, not the same month, not everyone is a follower, etc.), but it serves roughly the same purpose. A majority of CNN twitter subscribers do not go on CNN.com, showing that this tweet can and will mislead those people.

Getty Images Video
While Pro proves a point about how the photo journalist wouldn't know that Trump and Abe would dump the food and purposely zoom in on Trump, this doesn't mean anything.
Let's ask about why CNN used this video. There are obviously others in existence which show both Trump and Abe dumping the food (as i've shown you), so why did CNN use the video of only Trump dumping the food? Why did they use this zoomed-in and shakey video as opposed to a clear stable one?
They used this one instead of a different one to discredit Trump.


To rebut the answers you gave to my questions:

- "Why did they crop out Shinzo Abe dumping out food?"
Already adressed, see "Getty Images Video", but they also could have edited the video themselves.

- "Why not include the full video, and avoid all of this?"
Why would he zoom in on Trump like that? The camera shot is so insanely awkward and is obviously trying to keep Abe out of the picture. This most likely means the video has been edited to keep Abe out of the shot.

- "Why even make news of this?"
How is this a question for another debate? The creation of the tweet, video, and news story is a vital part of this debate.
Question still stands, why would they make news about Trump feeding fish?

- "Why caption/label it the way they did?"
If the caption is meant to mislead, it is fake news.

- "Even though they included the sentence about Abe "appearing" to dump out food, the overall purpose was still to mislead readers."
Intent already adressed, see "CNN seeks to discredit Trump"

Pleasure debating with you.
Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 17djones 2 years ago
17djones
Buckwheat6105SteelPelicanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: I gave conduct to PRO only because of the fact CON continued to say "vote con" after their arguments. But other than that, this debate goes to CON due to the fact that they had more convincing arguments about CNN being deceptive and more sources to back their claim. plus, PRO continued to shift their definition during the debate. Thus, CON gets the win.
Vote Placed by SupaDudz 2 years ago
SupaDudz
Buckwheat6105SteelPelicanTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I voted CON in this debate. This example was a good thing to bring as it shows specific evidence in it that made it losing. PRO's definition is horrible(sorry). Your definition is in favour of him as his main argument throughout the debate. It is sad because this is a winnable debate. You used the wrong definition which CON extended on. He completely stumped you because his definition goes into his favour. There he uses it to debunk it. Also, you don't even use your definition! CON wins due to conceding definition. CON, you should state a rule about definitions before. Sources due to the win on example.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.