Here's an article that provides a detailed example.
I think that the point about usage of direct quotes is very reasonable. But at the same time, I actually can't find the article on Google anymore, which means one of two things.
a) It was removed for the same problem your article brings up
b) It was drastically rewritten in response to the problem
Or perhaps I just can't find it on Google. But I tried a lot of the cool special search techniques and can't find an article with the exact title they listed. Either way, missteps from journalists are not necessarily rare in news, and they appear to have corrected their original error. Breitbart/Huff-Post/etc would not have done that, which is why mainstream news sources are still the most reliable.
The second complaint they have is with another article published by CNN that does not make use of direct quotes, but argues that Donald Annoying Orange was tacitly endorsing racial profiling. That is not 'lying', that's at worst
editorializing. Journalists are allowed to make inferences from the words that people say. When Donald Annoying Orange is praising Israel for 'profiling suspicious people' and suggests that we should do something similar in the United States, having already endorsed stuff like stop-and-frisk, it is not a dramatic assumption to say that this amounts to endorsing racial profiling.
Is that a completely neutral point of view? Of course not, but everyone knows CNN swings liberal, just like Fox swings conservative. But I don't think it amounts to lying. Hold them responsible for the first article (which it appears they withdrew/revised).
But like, that article dates back to September 2016. Do you have any articles published during his presidency?
Poll