RE: What happened to the news?

RE: What happened to the news? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

mcbride -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/14/2009 5:34:05 PM)
What Arpig said is…well, important. That kind of analysis, of what outlets spent time covering, says everything about the outlet. I’d love to see someone begin publishing a daily list of how much airtime the majors are giving each story. I like panels, if they’re populated by people with actual credentials. Broadcast news needs the extra context, and I do want to hear what David Gergen has to say, just as Presidents Clinton, Reagan, Ford and Nixon did. What’s troubling is the rise of the idiot panel, with Boopsie from the Gossip Channel, Chad from Us magazine, and Nancy Grace orchestrating their witch hunt du jour. The film Network was frighteningly prescient about everything from ownership concentration and its effect on news, to the takeover by “infotainment”. Every time I see Lou Dobbs or Glen Beck, I can’t help but remember Howard Beale’s line, “we’ll tell you any shit you want to hear.” What the movie pointed out, though, is that we’re getting what we want. More people watch the endless MJ saga, which means more revenue. When Paddy Chayefsky wrote Network, news divisions were starting to lose their protection, and the goal changed from providing journalism, as a condition of using the public airwaves, to making a profit. Goodbye, Edward R. Murrow, hello, Bill O’Reilly. “Young idealists,” indeed. Be sceptical of anything that includes the words “the media is”. I’ve found one cheap dictionary that now lists the word “media” as singular, as well as plural, but folks, the word still means “mediums”, and the trouble is that phrase, “the media is”, most of the time, begins some sweeping generalization. Fox News isn’t PBS isn’t the Hooterville Booster isn’t Runner Monthly. It may seem like semantics, but anytime you lump actual journalism in with Rupert Murdoch, Murdoch wins.

ThatDaveGuy69 -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/14/2009 6:04:59 PM)
McBride nailed it: when the news departments were forced to turn a profit, real news began to die. I blame the FCC. They pretty much gave up their responsibilty to police the airwaves on the public's behalf. The deal had always been that the networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) were given use of the public airwaves in return for informing the masses as well as entertaining them. The same government that let this responsibilty slip also allowed the concentration of media ownership. We used to have stong anti-trust legislation that was actually enforced. Maybe we'll see a re-surgance of that. But I won't hold my breath... "Network" nailed it big time. So did "Dirty Laundry" by Don Henley. But he had an axe to grind... ~Dave

Missokyst -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/14/2009 8:16:06 PM)
I am part of the majority.. the silent masses, the unrepresented, who owns a tv, reads a newspaper, and looks at news on cnn.. No one asked me if I wanted to be bombarded with all this MJ crap. I don't think the majority has a thing to do with it. We don't run the stations. It is a great pity that more people do not just turn it off.. but sadly most of the majority is glued to the box and will watch any drivel it puts out. How else can one explain the fascination for scripted reality shows? Kyst quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub As they say...money talks...money is all that is important now... And it is our own fault...These same networks spend millions surveying our watching habits and wants. They know most idiot people love the crap on TV...soooo we can't really bitch at them... They are only giving what the majority wants. Butch

Arpig -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/15/2009 1:16:29 AM)
The networks analyse every aspect of everything they put on the air. If they are pumping out MJ crap, it is because their market studies have told them that that is what the majority want to see. Remember the only thing the networks are interested in is drawing viewers...the more viewers, the more thay can charge for advetising. The ONLY thing they care about is the ratings, they don't give a shit about the quality or decency of what they put on, only that it puts bums on sofas and eyes on the screen. If they determined that videos of actual rapes would draw them the audience share, they would figure out a way to put it on the air.

blacksword404 -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/15/2009 2:53:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig The networks analyse every aspect of everything they put on the air. If they are pumping out MJ crap, it is because their market studies have told them that that is what the majority want to see. Remember the only thing the networks are interested in is drawing viewers...the more viewers, the more thay can charge for advetising. The ONLY thing they care about is the ratings, they don't give a shit about the quality or decency of what they put on, only that it puts bums on sofas and eyes on the screen. If they determined that videos of actual rapes would draw them the audience share, they would figure out a way to put it on the air. That's why big companies pay them big money. I always hated the news playing 9-11 audio for entertainment. Seems fucked up to play audio of people at their worst. Might as well play snuff films.

mr86259 -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/15/2009 10:00:27 AM)
I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I don't really have an objection to what CNN or the nightly network news broadcasts etc. choose to cover. They're owned by large public corporations whose managers/directors have a fiduciary responsibility - to do whatever is within the bounds of the law to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. That's what those corporations are designed to do. Complaining that they don't put on enough unbiased or public interest programming is like complaining that your car didn't float when you drove it into the ocean. That's not what it's supposed to do. I've heard rumors that David Geffen is trying to raise a fund to buy the New York Times and hold it as a not-for-profit public-interest institution. But, of course, then they would just be beholden to the biases of Geffen or whoever's running that group. So I'm not sure that's such a great solution, either. But the positive side of this is that we're living in a time when most people (outside of North Korea & the like) have access to more information and news than ever before. It takes some work, and each person has to evaluate the source of any information on their own, but if you want to find out what's going on in just about any part of the world, the info is out there. I mean, you can read pretty much any newspaper published anywhere, anytime you want, for free (with a few exceptions). That seems like a pretty good state of affairs, overall. Well, unless you work in the newspaper business. I do find this kind of funny - my sense is (although I'm not young enough to know for sure) that people complain more about the media now versus 50 years ago, when most people were lucky to have access to news through a couple local newspapers, a few major magazines, and a handful of local TV & radio stations.

mcbride -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/16/2009 12:05:12 PM)
quote: I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I don't really have an objection to what CNN or the nightly network news broadcasts etc. choose to cover. They're owned by large public corporations whose managers/directors have a fiduciary responsibility - to do whatever is within the bounds of the law to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. That's what those corporations are designed to do. Complaining that they don't put on enough unbiased or public interest programming is like complaining that your car didn't float when you drove it into the ocean. That's not what it's supposed to do. quote: ORIGINAL: mr86259 mr86259, you devil, you. And now, in his first ever appearance on behalf of the angels... Those corporations, and their individual stations, do indeed have a fiduciary responsibility to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. Absolutely, and mazeltov to 'em. One thing, though. Those granted the right to use the public airwaves have done so with the express contractual agreement that they provide reasonable access and equal opportunities, among other things. (My personal favourite is the FCC's line that "slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”) Complaining that they don't put on enough unbiased or public interest programming is like complaining that....they're violating the terms of their licences. Things are different for cable networks, but at the risk of really sounding like I'm enjoying this like this side-of-the-angels stuff, democracy doesn't work, can't work, if media aren't giving citizens a clear picture. That Lincoln fella said "Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe." I agree completely that people complain more about the media now versus 50 years ago, but ironically, there were far more media owners 50 years ago, so even with hundreds of channels, you're getting information from fewer sources than Grampa did. You also said "each person has to evaluate the source of any information on their own." That's a huge lesson for the Internet age, and I would make it a mandatory part of any school curriculum, so...nicely said!

mr86259 -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/16/2009 1:52:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mcbride quote: I'm going to play the devil's advocate. I don't really have an objection to what CNN or the nightly network news broadcasts etc. choose to cover. They're owned by large public corporations whose managers/directors have a fiduciary responsibility - to do whatever is within the bounds of the law to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. That's what those corporations are designed to do. Complaining that they don't put on enough unbiased or public interest programming is like complaining that your car didn't float when you drove it into the ocean. That's not what it's supposed to do. quote: ORIGINAL: mr86259 mr86259, you devil, you. And now, in his first ever appearance on behalf of the angels... Those corporations, and their individual stations, do indeed have a fiduciary responsibility to generate profits for the benefit of their shareholders. Absolutely, and mazeltov to 'em. One thing, though. Those granted the right to use the public airwaves have done so with the express contractual agreement that they provide reasonable access and equal opportunities, among other things. (My personal favourite is the FCC's line that "slanting the news is a most heinous act against the public interest.”) Complaining that they don't put on enough unbiased or public interest programming is like complaining that....they're violating the terms of their licences. Things are different for cable networks, but at the risk of really sounding like I'm enjoying this like this side-of-the-angels stuff, democracy doesn't work, can't work, if media aren't giving citizens a clear picture. That Lincoln fella said "Let the people know the facts, and the country will be safe." I agree completely that people complain more about the media now versus 50 years ago, but ironically, there were far more media owners 50 years ago, so even with hundreds of channels, you're getting information from fewer sources than Grampa did. You also said "each person has to evaluate the source of any information on their own." That's a huge lesson for the Internet age, and I would make it a mandatory part of any school curriculum, so...nicely said! Well, as you acknowledged, you've narrowed the discussion from the news media overall to the charters of the over-the air digital broadcast networks. Even so - if you manage one of those networks, and you know that the access and opportunity language in the charter isn't enforced and likely never will be, then at that point you have somewhere between an economic incentive and a fiduciary responsibility to ignore that language and proceed with whatever's most profitable.

DesFIP -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/16/2009 7:01:08 PM)
OP, do you watch the news like clockwork, every day at the same time? Do you subscribe to a good newspaper and read it every day from cover to cover? When I was a kid, my mother watched the five oclock news, my Dad watched the ten oclock. And we got both a morning and evening papers which were read. When people stopped watching the news, stopped reading the news, the media responded to market pressure and stopped spending as much on it.

subfever -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/16/2009 7:21:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Arpig ... Remember the only thing the networks are interested in is drawing viewers...the more viewers, the more thay can charge for advetising. The ONLY thing they care about is the ratings... If the only thing they care about is the ratings, why was Donahue pulled?

blacksword404 -> RE: What happened to the news? (7/16/2009 8:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP OP, do you watch the news like clockwork, every day at the same time? Do you subscribe to a good newspaper and read it every day from cover to cover? When I was a kid, my mother watched the five oclock news, my Dad watched the ten oclock. And we got both a morning and evening papers which were read. When people stopped watching the news, stopped reading the news, the media responded to market pressure and stopped spending as much on it. I stopped watching the news a few years ago. I get my news from a xm radio show I listen to. They cover news for my industry and some national stories. I get the same stories everybody else get's but I also get a lot of stories the national news won't report.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125