That detail is a big part of why I said the evidence was unconvincing. I don't think it's enough to completely discount it (yet), but it's definitely a big strike against the evidence's credibility.
Oh, and I listed other incidents if you don't think that was a good example.
Falsified evidence is "unconvincing" but "not enough to discount it." All you have on this case on their side is falsified evidence and then you act as if this should be ignored and not make you suspicious of what else they have said. Meanwhile you claim that even if CNN is telling the truth here they should be still considered untrustworthy because of other offences? That's just dishonesty on your part.
The first link to the supposed lies about the riot goes to a weird website where the only evidence appears to be tweets by the writer of the article (which I can't access.) and the whole site appears to have an obvious agenda that makes me suspicious of them.
The final example was some silly stunt, which I admit was a bit weird. Still, do you really think that a stunt like that is enough to discredit an entire news organization? Is that the line we draw and use to evaluate everyone?
You know, upon reflection, I think I did let my anti-CNN bias get the better of me, leading me to give the emails more credence than I probably should've. Of course, the fact that it was published in a reputable source like Business Insider might also have been a factor. Still, I guess this whole incident is proof that I'm not as above certain biases as I thought I was.
But as for the lies about the riot,
here's a YouTube video.