How manipulative is CNN fake news?? Here's an example...

[Ross Dolan]

They didn't want people to know that the price of oil came back down as fast as it went up?

They instead wanted to falsely imprint into people's minds that oil was still much closer to $120/barrel rather than falling right back down to $85/barrel again?

Like I said, MANIPULATIVE language.

MANIPULATIVE language???

Who in the United States would possibly use MANIPULATIVE language?

You must be kidding.

 

[AProudLefty]

Once again, JPP's leftists cannot address the topic of a thread... I ask once again:

Why didn't the CNN article reference the precise price that oil backed off to? Why did they say "backing off somewhat" rather than "backing off to $85/barrel"?

They used a precise number when referencing the highest amount that oil reached, but they declined to use a precise number when oil quickly "backed off" to $85/barrel. Why?

So because it isn't specific it's fake news?

Nice logic you got there.

 

[gfm7175]

Post one then.

See my post #1.

 

[gfm7175]

MANIPULATIVE language???

Yes.

Who in the United States would possibly use MANIPULATIVE language?

CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, WaPo, Politico, Reuters, PBS, NPR, etc etc... or in short, Team Donkey.

You must be kidding.

Nope.

 

[gfm7175]

So because it isn't specific it's fake news?

Nice logic you got there.

"backing off somewhat" implies that prices only came down very slightly (and are still near $120/barrel).

$85 is MUCH less than $120... that's not just "somewhat".

They purposely use misleading and subjective language in order to manipulate people and keep them blind to the truth.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Yes.

CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX, WaPo, Politico, Reuters, PBS, NPR, etc etc... or in short, Team Donkey.

Nope.

Jesus H. Christ, gfm. In another thread, one of you morons said, "These leftist fools don't understand normal sarcasm. Yes they really are that stupid. Why they are allowed to roam freely is beyond me."

Gotta wonder why you are allowed to roam.

The single most frequent purveyor of "MANIPULATIVE language" on this planet...is Trump. The most frequent purveyors of "MANIPULATIVE language" on this planet...are the morons still supporting Trump.

I was being sarcastic, you asshole...because the entire thrust of your childish OP theme is directed in the wrong direction.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/politics/rising-oil-costs-gas-trump

Take a good look at this gem of an article that was published at 4:30PM ET yesterday. I want to draw your attention to one specific line within this article to show just how pathetic CNN fake news is. That line is: "Oil prices early Monday neared $120 a barrel before backing off somewhat, a level not seen since the early stages of Russia’s war against Ukraine in 2022.

First, look at the words that I underlined. "Backing off somewhat"... Why didn't they just say the precise number that it backed off to? Because they wish to MANIPULATE people... Because they don't want people to know that "backing off somewhat" wasn't just a few dollars, but was actually THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS (from $120 a barrel down to $85 a barrel).

They didn't say the precise number because the number fluctuates. The number at 4:29 ET is not the same number as 4:30 or 4:31 and it will be different again at 5:30. It seems you are too stupid to understand how prices work.



Today, the price has risen to almost $100 when I just checked it.

BTW, where are all of the articles about oil futures quickly collapsing? Oil futures even dipped below $80 a barrel briefly today.

Once the fear mongering settles, oil will return back down to "Trumpian" pricing instead of being a few dimes below the lowest of the "Autopen" pricing (during about 4/5ths of the Autopen's term).

Wow. I guess you just proved you doing are what you accused CNN of doing since you didn't tell us what number oil went back up to after it had that dip.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

"backing off somewhat" implies that prices only came down very slightly (and are still near $120/barrel).

$85 is MUCH less than $120... that's not just "somewhat".

They purposely use misleading and subjective language in order to manipulate people and keep them blind to the truth.

I guess you are somewhat stupid because you don't understand how markets work. The drop from $120 was gradual.

Then I guess you are somewhat stupid because you don't understand how journalism works. You don't know when the story was actually written. It could have been written when prices were at $110 or when they were at $115. I'll give you a hint - the story wasn't written at 4:31 pm which is when it was posted online. It was written and went through an editorial process before being posted.

You sure are a lot of somewhat stupids and that adds up to a lot of stupid.

 

[gfm7175]

Jesus H. Christ, gfm. In another thread, one of you morons said, "These leftist fools don't understand normal sarcasm. Yes they really are that stupid. Why they are allowed to roam freely is beyond me."

Gotta wonder why you are allowed to roam.

The single most frequent purveyor of "MANIPULATIVE language" on this planet...is Trump. The most frequent purveyors of "MANIPULATIVE language" on this planet...are the morons still supporting Trump.

I was being sarcastic, you asshole...because the entire thrust of your childish OP theme is directed in the wrong direction.

blah blah blah

 

[gfm7175]

They didn't say the precise number because the number fluctuates.

If that's true, then why did they say $120? Shouldn't they have avoided saying a precise number because the number fluctuates?

Follow up question: Why do they even bother to say any number at all then? (the price of oil always fluctuates)

The number at 4:29 ET is not the same number as 4:30 or 4:31 and it will be different again at 5:30.

Right. See above.

It seems you are too stupid to understand how prices work.

It seems you are too stupid to understand how manipulation of minds works.

Today, the price has risen to almost $100 when I just checked it.

WTI Crude is currently trading at ~$95/barrel (and seems to be rising at the immediate moment).

Wow. I guess you just proved you doing are what you accused CNN of doing

Nope. See above.

since you didn't tell us what number oil went back up to after it had that dip.

I don't report on current events for a living, so don't expect a daily (or hourly) update from me.

Right now, I told you a precise number. I didn't say that oil "increased somewhat". I didn't attempt to manipulate anyone like CNN did. I simply told you that oil is now trading at $95/barrel (which is up from the $85/barrel rate that I last mentioned).

 

[Ross Dolan]

blah blah blah

Okay, Child. Have it your way. Don't mind me laughing at you.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess you are somewhat stupid

When you try to point out how I am stupid, you only continue to make YOURSELF look stupid. You should just stop before you keep digging your hole even deeper.

because you don't understand how markets work. The drop from $120 was gradual.

I wouldn't consider an almost 30% drop to be "gradual".

Then I guess you are somewhat stupid because you don't understand how journalism works.

You don't know when the story was actually written.

You don't know that, in the "digital age", articles are updated with new information up until the very moment that they are published (and sometimes even after!)?

It could have been written when prices were at $110 or when they were at $115.

Your stupidity is showing (still). See above. While the "guts" of the article are written in advance, the fine details of the article (such as current oil prices) are constantly updated with the "latest information" up until the very moment of publication (sometimes even AFTER!).

I'll give you a hint - the story wasn't written at 4:31 pm which is when it was posted online.

I'll give you a hint - the story was regularly updated all the way until 4:30pm ET before being published at 4:31pm ET.

It was written and went through an editorial process before being posted.

Yup, and a part of that editorial process is updating fine details within the story up until the very last minute before publication.

You sure are a lot of somewhat stupids and that adds up to a lot of stupid.

Projection. You keep digging your 'stupid hole' deeper and deeper every single time you try to make me out to look stupid, so KEEP DIGGING good buddy!

 

[Crepitus]

See my post #1.

That's not one. That is the aforementioned whining.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

If that's true, then why did they say $120? Shouldn't they have avoided saying a precise number because the number fluctuates?

Follow up question: Why do they even bother to say any number at all then? (the price of oil always fluctuates)

Wow. I guess Pam Bondi should have avoided saying the DOW was at 50,000.
You really are in a cult because you make ridiculous arguments that blow up in your face. It is common practice to report highs.

Right. See above.

It seems you are too stupid to understand how manipulation of minds works.

I understand how you are in a cult. You are the one that refused to see how you are being manipulated by your cult leader.

WTI Crude is currently trading at ~$95/barrel (and seems to be rising at the immediate moment).

Once again, you are so deep in the cult you can't even see prices correctly. The high for WTI so far was $96.71 so it is currently off the high.

Nope. See above.

I don't report on current events for a living, so don't expect a daily (or hourly) update from me.

I only expect you to wake up some day and realize you are a cult member.

Right now, I told you a precise number. I didn't say that oil "increased somewhat". I didn't attempt to manipulate anyone like CNN did. I simply told you that oil is now trading at $95/barrel (which is up from the $85/barrel rate that I last mentioned).

But why are we talking about Epstein since the DOW is over 50,000?

CNN didn't attempt to manipulate anyone, they reported that the high for the day was near $120 and the price was now off that high. It seems being in a cult you don't know about reality.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What navy is Iran using to lay these mines?

Well, if any of their submarines are operational, which at least public assessments say none likely are, they could try and use those. But it looks like all they have left are jokes like this puny boat.

That can deploy four (4) WW 1 style anchored sea mines. Those are only good in the coastal regions of the strait leaving most of it open as the depth of water is too great for those mines to work in.

I really like that high-tech missile defense system on the back of that boat too!

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

When you try to point out how I am stupid, you only continue to make YOURSELF look stupid. You should just stop before you keep digging your hole even deeper.

I guess being in your cult, you don't realize how stupid you look most days.

I wouldn't consider an almost 30% drop to be "gradual".

The drop wasn't from $120 one minute to $85 the next minute. How stupid are you actually?

You don't know that, in the "digital age", articles are updated with new information up until the very moment that they are published (and sometimes even after!)?

They can be. But they don't have to be. Now it is you trying to manipulate the "facts" by claiming things could be true that are not in evidence. The fact is you don't know what time the article was written or what the price for WTI crude was at when the article was written. This is all made up cult ranting on your part based on nothing but your cult beliefs.

Your stupidity is showing (still). See above. While the "guts" of the article are written in advance, the fine details of the article (such as current oil prices) are constantly updated with the "latest information" up until the very moment of publication (sometimes even AFTER!).

I'll give you a hint - the story was regularly updated all the way until 4:30pm ET before being published at 4:31pm ET.

OK. Tell us who updated it. The problem is you are now arguing that the story wasn't edited to your liking. That is much different from your earlier claim. You are simply making things up because otherwise you would have to admit that you have no real argument at this point.

Yup, and a part of that editorial process is updating fine details within the story up until the very last minute before publication.

Projection. You keep digging your 'stupid hole' deeper and deeper every single time you try to make me out to look stupid, so KEEP DIGGING good buddy!

The fact that the price of WTI crude approached a high and then came off it is a fine detail in a story when it is buried in the middle of the story that is 26 paragraphs long? Prior to what you are complaining about, the article says this -"Now, as oil prices hover near $100 a barrel just over a week into the war and US gas prices are moving sharply higher."

But what is even more interesting is the article includes a chart of prices of WTI crude prices for the day. It shows that at 4PM, the price was $100. It didn't drop to $89 until 8PM on that day. I guess being in a cult, you think 8PM is before 4:30PM.

What we are left with is you are in a cult and can't get simple facts straight. The price of WTI crude was not at $85 at 4:30. You are lying to yourself and lying to us.

 

[LurchAddams]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/09/politics/rising-oil-costs-gas-trump

Take a good look at this gem of an article that was published at 4:30PM ET yesterday. I want to draw your attention to one specific line within this article to show just how pathetic CNN fake news is. That line is: "Oil prices early Monday neared $120 a barrel before backing off somewhat, a level not seen since the early stages of Russia’s war against Ukraine in 2022.

First, look at the words that I underlined. "Backing off somewhat"... Why didn't they just say the precise number that it backed off to? Because they wish to MANIPULATE people... Because they don't want people to know that "backing off somewhat" wasn't just a few dollars, but was actually THIRTY FIVE DOLLARS (from $120 a barrel down to $85 a barrel).

BTW, where are all of the articles about oil futures quickly collapsing? Oil futures even dipped below $80 a barrel briefly today.

Once the fear mongering settles, oil will return back down to "Trumpian" pricing instead of being a few dimes below the lowest of the "Autopen" pricing (during about 4/5ths of the Autopen's term).

You trumtpards are a crack up. We get nothing from you or trump but lies and crime and you have the nerve to complain about a news outlet who does nothing but report the things trump says and does.

You "free speech" absolutists are nothing but a bunch of pussies and hypocrites.

 

[LurchAddams]

Noking and Jade have already failed at addressing the topic of the thread........ anyone else wanna give it a go?

Sure. You're trying to vilify a news network for reporting the truth. Meanwhile you're just fine with Fox News pushing nothing but propaganda daily. Fox News routinely cuts trump speeches off when he starts to ramble and recently was called out for refusing to show trump in a baseball cap during a dignified transfer of our troops.

You fucktards whine and whine about "suppression of speech" but whine like little bitches when the news is unfriendly.

Here's an idea: quit fucking up and you'll stop getting bad news coverage!

 

[LurchAddams]

I'm personally referencing the WTI Crude (US domestic standard) number. The CNN article seems to favor the Brent Crude (international standard) number because it's higher. The other two you mention aren't primary global benchmarks like WTI and Brent.

trump has fucked the economy with his criminal tariffs and attacking Iran. This is why you trumptards are all so desperate now with this "Save America Acting" which will supress the vote.

You now know cheating is the only way you'll ever win elections.

 

[Jake Starkey]

"backing off somewhat" implies that prices only came down very slightly (and are still near $120/barrel).

$85 is MUCH less than $120... that's not just "somewhat".

They purposely use misleading and subjective language in order to manipulate people and keep them blind to the truth.

It's 95 to 99 today, much more than 63 to 67.