jasonxctf Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 So I was thinking about the constant chatter, complaining, bit*hing, moaning, etc about the Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olberman, Chris Matthews's of the world. These guys tend to get "special attention" because they reside on channels who either call themselves News networks (Fox News) or are clearly categorized as news networks. (CNN, MSNBC, etc) So many people turn on a news channel, expecting news, get one of these guys, and take it as gospel and think that everything they say is truth. These networks and individuals will argue that the public is smart enough to know that these shows are not news, just like they are smart enough to know that the Editorial/Opinion sections in Newspapers aren't news either. (1st, people aren't that smart. And 2nd, in the newspapers, there's a big headline that says Opinion/Our Views/Editorials, etc) So, why not have a little logo on the screen that says "Opinion" whenever these shows are on? Shoot they already litter the screen with other graphics, rolling newsbars, logos, etc. When they go back to normal news reporting, the logo can come down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I hate cable TV because they will have a scientist and a right-wing talk show host/blogger who dropped out of college on a panel debating the issue, and they are put on equal footing. Everyone can be an expert on TV. This makes America stupider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The best way to fight the trend of these stations doing so little news reporting, is for a competitor to crop up that does in fact report news. There are some bright spots here and there, but they are on the web or in print, not on TV. Or if they are on TV like PBS, they don't have the resources to truly be a global news presence. My prediction: BBC will parlay their continued expansion in the US into a full-blown US news channel, to compete with the existing MSM. And I'd probably watch it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 09:38 AM) The best way to fight the trend of these stations doing so little news reporting, is for a competitor to crop up that does in fact report news. There are some bright spots here and there, but they are on the web or in print, not on TV. Or if they are on TV like PBS, they don't have the resources to truly be a global news presence. My prediction: BBC will parlay their continued expansion in the US into a full-blown US news channel, to compete with the existing MSM. And I'd probably watch it. I'd watch a network like that too. I think this is a currently un-filled market niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 When CNN did that they earned the label "Communist News Network" for reporting actual news that didn't jibe with the administration's official lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I would like to also say...I really don't have a problem with the existence of these commentators, nor do I have a problem with the existence of something like Fox, which is 99% the mouthpiece of one party. The thing that bothers me the most though is how little attention gets paid to their influence by the other networks and how they're allowed to shape the debate without question by anyone except the Daily Show. Drudge picks up something about how kids in NJ sang a song that mentionned Obama 8 months before, it goes to Beck, the Fox "hard news" people start talking about how its now a controversy, then it migrates to the other channels without any effort to ask the simple questions. Like Lost says, they just play the old "2 equal sides" card, rather than asking "Did the parents approve the thing first" or "What did the school actually do". There's no accountability from the people who are supposed to be the hard news guys. When a Republican comes on and says "This health care system is a blatant takeover of government", the answer is not "Ok", it's "Why do you say that when study x says this and study y says this". When an administration official gives the number of jobs created by the stimulus, the question is "How do you deal with studies like this one". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Maybe FOX and MSNBC have lowered my standards so much for TV news, but CNN isn't all that bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:46 AM) When CNN did that they earned the label "Communist News Network" for reporting actual news that didn't jibe with the administration's official lines. CNN is probably the closest to center of any of the network news. However, they chose to get super fluffy the last few years, and their website has a lot less news material than others. During the elections, I preferred CNN, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The fact-checking of SNL skits was the straw for me with CNN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:55 PM) CNN is probably the closest to center of any of the network news. However, they chose to get super fluffy the last few years, and their website has a lot less news material than others. During the elections, I preferred CNN, though. Yeah in the past year or so they've really started to piss me off having international news in the same series of headlines as a Jon and Kate headline. During the election they were probably the best though. I'll still take Anderson Cooper, one of the few around that actually tries to ask questions and be a journalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I think this 12 minutes basically sums up everything that is wrong with how CNN currently operates. Although there are bleeps, probably nsfw. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c CNN Leaves It There www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 so back to the thought... why not require the "opinion" logo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) I would like to also say...I really don't have a problem with the existence of these commentators, nor do I have a problem with the existence of something like Fox, which is 99% the mouthpiece of one party. The thing that bothers me the most though is how little attention gets paid to their influence by the other networks and how they're allowed to shape the debate without question by anyone except the Daily Show. Drudge picks up something about how kids in NJ sang a song that mentionned Obama 8 months before, it goes to Beck, the Fox "hard news" people start talking about how its now a controversy, then it migrates to the other channels without any effort to ask the simple questions. Like Lost says, they just play the old "2 equal sides" card, rather than asking "Did the parents approve the thing first" or "What did the school actually do". There's no accountability from the people who are supposed to be the hard news guys. When a Republican comes on and says "This health care system is a blatant takeover of government", the answer is not "Ok", it's "Why do you say that when study x says this and study y says this". When an administration official gives the number of jobs created by the stimulus, the question is "How do you deal with studies like this one". Actually the entire establishment media, especially on the internet, is completely structured around Drudge, pushing things that he pushes, and trying to write articles that get linked by him because they are instant traffic spikers. The amount of influence he has over the news cycle is extremely irritating, especially when he is blowing some insignificant s*** out of proportion or whatever he's pushing is BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:01 PM) so back to the thought... why not require the "opinion" logo? I wouldn't be opposed to it. Edited November 12, 2009 by BigSqwert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:03 PM) I wouldn't be opposed to it. Me either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 10:01 AM) so back to the thought... why not require the "opinion" logo? At what point on Fox would it go away? Would it run on Joe Scarborough? What about when 2 different talking heads come on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasonxctf Posted November 12, 2009 Author Share Posted November 12, 2009 i would think you leave it on during the entire show, that's been deemed to be opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another. Not really, that would be like saying everybody is racist to one degree or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DukeNukeEm Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 Yea at least CNN's bulls*** news is just harmless bulls*** news. Not like the evil divisive bulls*** news on the other networks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve9347 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 11:37 AM) I hate cable TV because they will have a scientist and a right-wing talk show host/blogger who dropped out of college on a panel debating the issue, and they are put on equal footing. Everyone can be an expert on TV. This makes America stupider. Lol, if this was intentional, well done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (jasonxctf @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:01 PM) so back to the thought... why not require the "opinion" logo? The problem isn't that they are stating opinion, the problem is that the reporters are entertainers more than actual analysts. People watch certain programs for the very purpose of hearing the opinions. It won't change anything. The heart of the matter is that the O'Reilly and Olberman, and others, say all sorts of crap that they probably don't really believe, but know they get rating for saying it. Unfortunately, people hear those statements and take them as serious opinions of well-informed people. If anything, you need an "Entertainment" logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr_genius Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 12:12 PM) at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another. ^^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 O'Reilly and Olbermann have egos large enough to convince themselves that what they are saying is true. And all news is opinion because we, as humans, are incapable of keeping our feelings out of every story, every day, every month, every year. Plus, even if we, as humans, could do that. Other humans hear what they want to hear. All it takes is one different verbal inflection and pa-POW! Here come the freaks out of the woodwork to attack. One of the most interesting things I learned while in broadcast journalism was to write your stories as if everyone had a 6th grade education. Um...what the hell did we know in 6th grade? Nothing. What did we think we knew? Everything. This is why I stopped watching news. I'd rather take a crap in a box and see what that might do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 12, 2009 -> 01:12 PM) at the end of the day, all news is opinion to one degree or another. I don't know. Facts are facts--of course facts themselves mean nothing and need to be spun or interpreted. BUT it is possible to do that in a responsible way. It's like the difference between Psychology Today and the Journal of Memory and Language. Both of them include facts. Both of them often include the SAME facts. But in one case you have Joe Schmo with a BA in Psych telling you what the facts are and spinning them. In JML you have PhDs giving you the facts and spinning them. In JML you also have peer review that makes you accountable for the way you spin the facts. As a result you don't get cracked out interpretations and wild conjecture. You get less diluted facts that have been thoughtfully rendered. Sadly, today's news options aren't even Psychology Today. It's like Star and being spun and rendered by developmentally disabled monkeys. And yet people treat it like it was gold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts