CNN has long been a liberal, left wing supporting media agency. During the debates, CNN fed the Clinton campaign questions in advance so that Hillary's team could carefully craft her responses. They did this in both the primaries against Bernie and the presidential debates against Donald.
The moderators had a tendency to gang up on Trump and went easy on Clinton. No one really pushed issues that made her look bad, or if they were asked they were just skimmed over and moved on. There is a reason why CNN was nicknamed the "Clinton News Network" and some years ago the "Corrupt News Network."
CNN can take a seat at the back of the room as far as I am concerned.
Hey - I went on CNN.con today, just to see why you might be talking about here.
The first Op-Ed piece I saw was this defense of Scott Pruitt for the EPA, penned by Jeb Bush, dated 3pm ESt 12/20/16
Jeb Bush: Scott Pruitt is ready to turn around the EPA - CNN.com
I'm not seeing the bias. It seems like a liberal rag like CNN would suppress such an opinion, especially with someone as unpopular with the left as Pruitt. How do you know this liberal bias is there, especially if you're not reading it directly on their media on a. Regular basis?
Also "Clinton News Network" and "Corrupt News Network?" Did you make those up yourself? I doubt CNN reported it, so how do you know? Where are you getting you info?
Sometimes a dictatorship is exactly what a country needs so that it can move beyond the divisional BS that comes from a diverse society of cry babies and emotionally fragile softies.
Oh, never minded. Let me ask this instead. . . how long have you felt this way about the US need for a dictatorship?
What knowledge should a dictator have to ensure he is suppressing the right voices? On what basis would a dictator make such decisions?
. . .
Did your ideal dictator tell you that CNN was bad and you just believed him?