A few things really stood out for me when examining the two articles.

First, was CNN had already issued a correction for mischaracterization of one person leaving in initial version of article. Mistakes happen, but sometimes it feels like I can't recall the last time CNN made an assertion themselves, and didn't hide behind the opinion of an unnamed "source" and didn't end up having to issue a correction.

Second, the Independant article didn't note the common practice of an incoming administration requesting people to stay on for a while during the transition, giving the appearance of people quitting their jobs entirely to not serve under Trump. They did note however, some reasons why the two parties might not be congenial, such as the Benghazi testimony.

Third, the CNN article did note the recent tradition of people staying on, yet wasn't clear in the written piece on if the resignations were freely offered, or prompted by Trump. In fact, the wording of their anonymous "sources" could easily give one the impression that Trump and co. initiated the departures. This was given extra impetus by the auto-play video box, where breathless people ran with the tag-line from the anon sources: "White House Cleaning House" and basically said it was a mass firing.

Fourth, that CNN basically just ran with not only the opinion, but the wording of their two sources, who remain nameless. CNN never independently articulated any analysis, nor evidence, outside of people who remained unnamed, and reported their opinions on the matter. In rather breathless terms in the video talky-box, and with any possible hyperbole left undisturbed. While technically accurate to say that their two sources said "STUFF", a close inspection reveals the common CNN tactic of pushing someone else's opinion or take on a situation as fact. This allows CNN to technically be truthful, yet still report opinion as fact.

Fifth, what actually happened is that political appointees are required to submit a resignation to a new administration, if it is a PAS position (politically appointed, requiring Senate confirmation.) So the real story here, is that the Trump administration accepted them. We don't know without hearing from the parties involved whether they wanted to leave or not, and the Washington Post notes as much, as well as the internal confusion within the Dept as to which narrative is true.

Sixth, CNN highlighted the "loss of 150 years of institutional knowledge" put forward in the wording of their anon source, despite the fact that several of the people resigning from PAS positions are likely to continue on with the Dept in a different capacity. Is this institutional loss of knowledge, or job reassignment? Make up your mind.

Seventh, the breathless manner of the talking heads in the video box, as they recounted the anon sources opinions, crossed the line from "incomplete, crap" to really being out in left field. Using the opinions cited as a headline is really deceptive, when you state it verbally as fact, and do so in a breathless, incredulous manner.

Is the CNN article better than the Independent? Sure, you can make that argument, especially when considering the corrected CNN version, and the fact that the written CNN article at least states the fact that they are basically just regurgitating the opinions of anonymous sources.

But the CNN article is still a dumpster of shit, by any objective measure. The CNN video-box lights that dumpster on fire.

Par for the CNN course. CNN might not be fake news, but they are fake journalists with fake editors and producers.

I will note one thing though, and that is that I didn't pay a dime for CNN's take. (or the Independant's)

And perhaps, that is the problem.

To quote a German guy who once sold me a car: "joo vill get vat joo pay for."

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)