just skimming the headlines on my morning commute and seeing Tiger Woods issues/non-issues getting higher billing than what the President of the United States is saying about the war in Afghanistan made me shake my head ... and watching broadcast news these days can be simply painful, as schlock rides much higher over substance 99% of the time
I can remember back to my childhood watching the news with my grandad ... grandad was the news hound of the family, always devouring the newspapers and never missing an evening news broadcast (his favorite was the Huntley/Brinkley Report, followed closely by Walter Cronkite) ... and I remember having to watch the news at times for school projects, and grandad was right there to help guide me along on what was important and what was not
the thing he really wanted me to understand was how a news item should be reported - 1) a nice brief introduction of what the story was about 2) statements of the important items and facts of the story 3) an intelligent closing ... and I could watch Chet Huntley or David Brinkley or Walter Cronkite do just that
we don't get that any more
now we get sensationalized partial information, a disjointed storyline, MAYBE some facts ... and the "closing" is a panel of "experts" or "pundits" giving their interpretations of things which never were made clear to begin with ... total shit
maybe this is selective memories by me, but I honestly believe the reporters back then knew it was important for them to actually report ... not give their interpretations ... not interject their opinions except in the designated editorial slots ... but to report, clearly and concisely, best as they could, in order to actually be informative
and I miss that
when news used to be news
Moderator: wab
I don't go far enough back to remember Walter Cronkite, Boris, but I really miss the authenticity surrounding the way news used to be presented, too. Today's idea of news is so completely skewed that I've actually had people complain to me that certain news stories were biased because they WERE balanced and because they LACKED speculation.
The unfortunate fact is that form now trumps substance in the information age, and the whole idea that truth is the keystone of reporting has been overtaken by the more archaic urge for conflict -- to only believe that which supports what you want to believe and to cynically dismiss anything that challenges you as "biased." It's not that people can't handle the truth; they just choose not to sometimes, and the pseudo-journalists who are tasked to cover the news have chosen to whore themselves out to these people by selling them talking heads (you'll certainly agree with ONE of these people) instead of indisputable facts.
Since it's along my line of work, communications and the media has fascinated me for years, and so I of course have a mental list of "what went wrong" through the years that led us to this. If anyone's interested, here are a few:
- LA television stations in the early to mid 90s learned, by pure chance, that if they break into any program of any viewership at any time with helicopter footage of a car chase, viewership would always increase. OJ's white Bronco footage -- televised nationally -- unveiled this dirty little secret to the rest of the world, and they bit. Let the sensationalism begin! (Well, not "begin" necessarily, but increase exponentially. Hello Balloon Boy!)
- During the Clinton scandals of the late-90s, fledgling 24-hour news station Fox News -- still looking to gain footing in finances and viewership -- stumbled onto pure gold when they learned that by televising pundits of opposing viewpoints who argue without ever settling on any real "facts," they can attract many more viewers while spending much less money. CNN and MSNBC followed suit, and a new generation of young people spent their formative years watching Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Crossfire in primetime, considering them real news programs.
- Also during this time, terrorists leveled a couple of tall buildings in New York and tried to do the same in Washington, waking up a sleeping giant -- a group of former apathetic non-voters who felt that politics and world events didn't necessarily apply to their lives. By this time, 24-hour news networks -- already tainted -- fed them pundits as "journalists" and boisterous back-and-forth as "balance," laying down the final brick in our country's redefinition of news.
- A couple of years later, the blogosphere exploded in popularity, ensuring not only that people could cherry pick the legitimacy of mainstream news based on the complete elimination of cognitive dissonance, but they could now find "evidence" to support whatever they wish to choose to believe.
- And then we come full-circle to the news organizations who tried in vein to remain somewhat honest and above the fray of lunacy. They're now bottom feeders, watching the big fish above them succeeding not through truth in journalism or ethical reporting, but based on speculation, punditry and sensationalism. The real journalists -- struggling financially, closing bureau sites around the world, laying off, closing down -- are starting to sell out, either taking positions with the big dogs or lending them legitimacy through the coverage of pseudo-news.
Today, those who have contributed to the dumbing down of the system are able to achieve success while those who clung to the most integrity struggle to stay afloat.
The unfortunate fact is that form now trumps substance in the information age, and the whole idea that truth is the keystone of reporting has been overtaken by the more archaic urge for conflict -- to only believe that which supports what you want to believe and to cynically dismiss anything that challenges you as "biased." It's not that people can't handle the truth; they just choose not to sometimes, and the pseudo-journalists who are tasked to cover the news have chosen to whore themselves out to these people by selling them talking heads (you'll certainly agree with ONE of these people) instead of indisputable facts.
Since it's along my line of work, communications and the media has fascinated me for years, and so I of course have a mental list of "what went wrong" through the years that led us to this. If anyone's interested, here are a few:
- LA television stations in the early to mid 90s learned, by pure chance, that if they break into any program of any viewership at any time with helicopter footage of a car chase, viewership would always increase. OJ's white Bronco footage -- televised nationally -- unveiled this dirty little secret to the rest of the world, and they bit. Let the sensationalism begin! (Well, not "begin" necessarily, but increase exponentially. Hello Balloon Boy!)
- During the Clinton scandals of the late-90s, fledgling 24-hour news station Fox News -- still looking to gain footing in finances and viewership -- stumbled onto pure gold when they learned that by televising pundits of opposing viewpoints who argue without ever settling on any real "facts," they can attract many more viewers while spending much less money. CNN and MSNBC followed suit, and a new generation of young people spent their formative years watching Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Crossfire in primetime, considering them real news programs.
- Also during this time, terrorists leveled a couple of tall buildings in New York and tried to do the same in Washington, waking up a sleeping giant -- a group of former apathetic non-voters who felt that politics and world events didn't necessarily apply to their lives. By this time, 24-hour news networks -- already tainted -- fed them pundits as "journalists" and boisterous back-and-forth as "balance," laying down the final brick in our country's redefinition of news.
- A couple of years later, the blogosphere exploded in popularity, ensuring not only that people could cherry pick the legitimacy of mainstream news based on the complete elimination of cognitive dissonance, but they could now find "evidence" to support whatever they wish to choose to believe.
- And then we come full-circle to the news organizations who tried in vein to remain somewhat honest and above the fray of lunacy. They're now bottom feeders, watching the big fish above them succeeding not through truth in journalism or ethical reporting, but based on speculation, punditry and sensationalism. The real journalists -- struggling financially, closing bureau sites around the world, laying off, closing down -- are starting to sell out, either taking positions with the big dogs or lending them legitimacy through the coverage of pseudo-news.
Today, those who have contributed to the dumbing down of the system are able to achieve success while those who clung to the most integrity struggle to stay afloat.
“Some say the 46 is just an eight-man front. That’s like saying Marilyn Monroe is just a girl.” -- Buddy Ryan
“It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy.” -- Uncle Lar
“It's a sick world, and I'm a happy guy.” -- Uncle Lar
-
UOK
- Site Admin
- Posts: 25201
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 11:07 am
- Location: Champaign, IL
- Has thanked: 112 times
- Been thanked: 953 times
modern news is 90% entertainment news of no substance or real value, the remaining 20% is warped news, spun and fancied up to increase it's potential entertainment value. Cables news networks are almost entirely consisting of shotty figureheads who's opinions have no real worth to anyone. The news system is f*cked for the most part, pretty much all reporting is in the name of profits and not informing the public.
-
Ormazd
- MVP
- Posts: 1492
- Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2008 7:08 pm
- Location: Peoples Republic of Virginia
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
At least they're giving 110 percent!UrlachersOranjKleats wrote:modern news is 90% entertainment news of no substance or real value, the remaining 20% is warped news, spun and fancied up to increase it's potential entertainment value. Cables news networks are almost entirely consisting of shotty figureheads who's opinions have no real worth to anyone. The news system is f*cked for the most part, pretty much all reporting is in the name of profits and not informing the public.
-
IE
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 12500
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 am
- Location: Plymouth, MI
- Has thanked: 523 times
- Been thanked: 700 times
- Contact:
Is the news really affecting math skills? ... or is it a nearly complete absence of math and statistics skills across the bulk of the population that allows the media to say whatever they want with impunity?UrlachersOranjKleats wrote:the news is also effecting math skills
2023 Chicago Bears... emerging from a long hibernation, and hungry!
-
Boris13c
- Hall of Famer
- Posts: 15969
- Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2008 11:30 am
- Location: The Bear Nebula
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 113 times
IE wrote:Is the news really affecting math skills? ... or is it a nearly complete absence of math and statistics skills across the bulk of the population that allows the media to say whatever they want with impunity?
all I know is, last time I was at Burger King, I paid for my $7.35 order with a $10 bill and 35 cents in change, and got a $5.00 bill back
so take from that what you will
"Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things."
George Carlin
George Carlin