what is milod's take on all that CNN/FOX news hub-bub?

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

he used to work in the papers IIRC, I wonder what he has to say about sensualized news

[milod]

I think you mean "sensationalized" news.

 

I dunno in ways because what seems sensationalized to somebody may seem like "necessary news coverage" to others - and "news" that if not covered, is being covered up.

 

But again... a lot has to do with different perspectives. What might be considered a concept that bothers other folks at a given venue? Political correctness is not just confined to "the left." It all depends on whose ox is gored. Fox, in ways, is getting back from folks who perhaps got tired of CNN being called the "commie news network." And some of the commentary is not personally kind.

 

OTOH, I am bothered a bit by "The Weather Channel" leaving weather "news" for other stuff to promote cnbc. That's not because they may or may not be pretty "lefty," but rather because I watch the weather channel for the weather. Some "left-leaning" friends agree wholeheartedly.

 

I can tell you this about the news, though: Much has to do with various perspectives of what is important, and what is perceived to be important to the "audience." Fox programming reflects a perspective on what the editors believe would be important or of interest to a large audience - and they seem to prove that they're correct at that point.

 

A longtime Chicago columnist once wrote that the National Enquirer sells more "papers" than the New York Times, and asked which is "mainstream" journalism. I dunno. Maybe it's more important to people that Tiger Woods has marital problems than that their local taxes are going up. What do you think?

 

This may not be quite the answer you'd prefer, but...

 

m

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

anytime you share your knowledge and experience, I enjoy reading what you have to say. I think the last line was really impacting, some people think tiger wood's marital status is more important then taxes going up, just like I watch ESPN news to see who hit a home run today, not who voted for a bill, or if a cop shot someone ect

 

news is what the target audience wants to be in the know about, is how it is striking me

[freak show]

I think you mean "sensationalized" news.

 

"Sensualized news" isn't perhaps what you meant to say, but in this context it's still correct. The media "sensationalize" the news in order to make it pleasing for the senses of the viewers. In short, it's more fun to watch stories, which have been made more dramatic. Human nature will never change.

 

"panem et circenses"

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

i have been wrong before!

[milod]

Jesse.... Yeah, I think you've got it.

 

I'll add that it's not always a matter of "gee, those people have an political agenda," but rather trying to meet the perceived needs of a readership.

 

For example, if you run a soccer magazine, you're going to emphasize different aspects of soccer. If it's aimed toward youth soccer families and volunteer coaches/officials, it's gonna have a different emphasis than a version of "Sports Illustrated" emphasizing soccer at the professional level.

 

When I was an "outdoor editor," I pretty much emphasized the technical and "political" side of hunting, fishing and environmental issues rather than, "Me and Joe went fishin' last week..." It was different; it worked.

 

"Guitar Player" magazine used to have a little more broad content. Now it seems largely material I personally don't care much about, but I wish it had more of interest to me because I actually like to read ads on the latest gear.

 

So... Nowadays with the Internet, I think we haven't yet found a paradigm for getting information to people that they want, or that we think they want, that's as good as newspapers, magazines and television have had. I believe the next 20 years will have a lot of "behind the scenes" changes in delivery of information.

 

For example, I think the Gibson site and forums are among the best product-oriented sites I've seen in something like 14 years on line. But you still have to "dig" to find a specific bit of info. It's the most cost-efficient thing to do, I'm guessing, compared to a free "Gibson Magazine." So... the question is how do we get more of what a reader wants faster and better. Yeah, lots of us surf a lot, but it ain't like a newspaper or mag people pay for because they want it, or a proven tv audience watching what apparently "entertains" them.

 

m

[KSG_Standard]

I find it both strange and sad that people can't separate NEWS from OPINION. Fox's hard news isn't much different from CNN's. MSNBC appears to have an agenda and I find their "hard news" to be nearly useless (YMMV). I don't think that reporters and anchors can always effectively keep their own perspective and personal feelings out of the way they report, but we are all driven by our own perspective to some extent.

 

It seems that most of the people complaining about Fox are really complaining about their opinion and commentary shows. If you don't like their opinions, switch channels. Beck, Hannity, and O'reilly are NOT news anchors, Beck and Hannity never claim to be journalists or that they are presenting hard news. O'reilly is a credentialed journalist, but he's said repeatedly that he is a commentator and that he is presenting HIS opinion and commentary on news stories.

 

Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Olberman, Rachel Maddow and the other talking heads are nothing more than commentators, they are presenting THEIR opinions to a like minded audience. Like them or don't like them, believe them or don't believe them...who cares?

 

Roger Ailes, Chairman of Fox News Corp, actually marched with Martin Luther King Jr...Fox news has libs and cons working on air. Did the chairman of NBC or CNN march with King? Can you name any cons who work on air at CNN or MSNBC? Do any cons have their own shows on MSNBC or CNN?

 

As far as sensationalizing news, ALL of the news stations do it...If it bleeds it leads...Sex sells...and all that. Keep in mind as well that it's hard to fill up the airwaves 24/7/365, so they report stuff that wouldn't have made the news before the advent of cable news.

[milod]

I'll add a bit to that last...

 

There's an increasing problem in separating "news" from "commentary" thanks to the "comment" spaces on web "news" pieces of various sorts.

 

I think in the long run, it's gonna cause even more problems, especially since it's unsigned.

 

Note that I'm trying to stay as "un-political" as possible in this.

 

But yeah, there's a real problem for some folks separating the two; also "faces" that help this forum IMHO are a problem when you can tell what a tv news "commentator" or "anchor" is saying. That's not always bad. Cronkite didn't exactly look happy while reporting the death of JFK. But he also didn't look like he smelled a rotten egg when reporting general political issues, either.

 

Of course... in the old days, the tv guys came from a newspaper background in an era of trying to tell it "straight" and let the facts bring out the interest of a story rather than adjectives.

 

m

[tulsaslim]

I find it both strange and sad that people can't separate NEWS from OPINION. Fox's hard news isn't much different from CNN's. MSNBC appears to have an agenda and I find their "hard news" to be nearly useless (YMMV). I don't think that reporters and anchors can always effectively keep their own perspective and personal feelings out of the way they report' date=' but we are all driven by our own perspective to some extent.

 

It seems that most of the people complaining about Fox are really complaining about their opinion and commentary shows. If you don't like their opinions, switch channels. Beck, Hannity, and O'reilly are NOT news anchors, Beck and Hannity never claim to be journalists or that they are presenting hard news. O'reilly is a credentialed journalist, but he's said repeatedly that he is a commentator and that he is presenting HIS opinion and commentary on news stories.

 

Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Ed Shultz, Chris Matthews, Olberman, Rachel Maddow and the other talking heads are nothing more than commentators, they are presenting THEIR opinions to a like minded audience. Like them or don't like them, believe them or don't believe them...who cares?

 

Roger Ailes, Chairman of Fox News Corp, actually marched with Martin Luther King Jr...Fox news has libs and cons working on air. Did the chairman of NBC or CNN march with King? Can you name any cons who work on air at CNN or MSNBC? Do any cons have their own shows on MSNBC or CNN?

 

As far as sensationalizing news, ALL of the news stations do it...If it bleeds it leads...Sex sells...and all that. Keep in mind as well that it's hard to fill up the airwaves 24/7/365, so they report stuff that wouldn't have made the news before the advent of cable news.[/quote']

 

Name ONE Liberal who works for Fox News. (Rupert couldn't, and he owns the place).

 

Can you name any cons who work on air at CNN or MSNBC?

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressman) who has his own show. They also employ Pat Buchanan.

 

CNN has Erik Erickson, Ed Rollins, Alex Castellano, (big-time Repub pundits) just to name a few. John King has his own show.

[KSG_Standard]

Name ONE Liberal who works for Fox News. (Rupert couldn't' date=' and he owns the place).

 

Can you name any cons who work on air at CNN or MSNBC?

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressman) who has his own show. They also employ Pat Buchanan.

 

CNN has Erik Erickson, Ed Rollins, Alex Castellano, (big-time Repub pundits) just to name a few. John King has his own show.

[/quote']

 

Geraldo has his own show.

Greta Van Sustern has her own show.

Shepard Smith anchors the primetime news.

Allen Colmes was on one of the longest running cable opinion shows and still has his own Fox radio show.

Too many liberal contributors to list, but they get equal time and billing.

 

 

I forgot about Scarborough, but Buchanon is a contributor.

 

I don't know about many of the names you listed for CNN, but Ed Rollins and Alex Castellano are just contributors who provide some balance during round table discussions. I don't know who Erik Erickson is and I'm not sure about John King being a conservative...he doesn't appear to be.

[stevef]

Name ONE Liberal who works for Fox News. (Rupert couldn't' date=' and he owns the place).

 

Can you name any cons who work on air at CNN or MSNBC?

MSNBC has Joe Scarborough (a former Republican congressman) who has his own show. They also employ Pat Buchanan.

 

CNN has Erik Erickson, Ed Rollins, Alex Castellano, (big-time Repub pundits) just to name a few. John King has his own show.

[/quote']

 

Alan Combs.

[DanvillRob]

Name ONE Liberal who works for Fox News. (Rupert couldn't' date=' and he owns the place).

 

[/quote']

 

 

Maybe Roger doesn't know that Greta worked for Ted Kennedy, (which is good 'cause she doens't expose her leanings), but you have to list Megyn Kelley, Lis Weil, Geraldo Rivera, Shep Smith, Bob Beckel, Juan Williams, and probably some I'm forgetting, and several who keep their politics off the air.

[NeoConMan]

I'm not sure about John King being a conservative...he doesn't appear to be.

Remember' date=' if you're one of "them" - anybody who is [i']not[/i] is automatically one of "those people"...

 

And human nature being what it is, even the most "tolerant" among us may take a dim view of "those people"...

[charlie brown]

"News" would take 10 minutes (max)...but, "Entertainment" pays the bills! So, we get a lot

of (depending on your point of view) "non-sense" along with the "News," whatever that might be.

My biggest problem with TV news (any network), is while trying to "outscoop" the "other guys,"

accuracy is all too often, lost (at least, for a time) in the process. As it is, in the case of "agenda"

promoting, as well. I miss Walter Kronkite, Chet and David, etc. When News was news, and only

news....not "entertainment!" But, it's a whole "nuther" (tabloid) world, these days.

 

I loved Paddy Chayefsky's satire.."Network!"....and now, like "A Clockwork Orange"...We're there! ;>)

 

CB

[milod]

CB makes a good point.

 

Here's an outgrowth of it... Let's say station "A" gets a story about a plane crash, nice straight coverage. Station "B" has to "cover" it too, but the news director wants "a different angle." Ditto station "C."

 

See where that's going?

 

In "political" coverage, there are angles that seem important from one perspective and not important from others.

 

Then there's the "what do people think about this" when you know darned well they really don't know much - but tears or shouts of anger seem to be more important than an explanation of facts.

 

Frankly the "health care debate" bugs me a lot because I question that anybody, including folks in Congress, really knows what's in that X thousand-page bill and what the consequences, intended and unintended, will be.

 

Here again, I hear people on both sides arguing from passion, not facts, and especially the tv coverage is about passion, not facts. That tends to bother me a bit. Problem is, folks on both sides seem to prefer passion to facts and couch their arguments accordingly.

 

m

[tulsaslim]

Remember' date=' if you're one of "them" - anybody who is [i']not[/i] is automatically one of "those people"...

 

And human nature being what it is, even the most "tolerant" among us may take a dim view of "those people"...

 

The reverse is also true. Ronald Reagan used to be a democrat but they don't claim him any more than they claim Van Susteran (last I heard she was advising Sarah Palin), Alan Combs (please don't insult real liberals by throwing Hannity's punching bag into our camp), or Juan Williams. Geraldo? He's your clown, not ours. He is nothing more than a laughing stock to any liberal I know.

[DanvillRob]

The reverse is also true. Ronald Reagan used to be a democrat but they don't claim him any more than they claim Van Susteran (last I heard she was advising Sarah Palin)' date=' Alan Combs (please don't insult real liberals by throwing Hannity's punching bag into our camp), or Juan Williams. Geraldo? He's your clown, not ours. He is nothing more than a laughing stock to any liberal I know.[/quote']

 

So who's a "real" liberal? Bob Byrd?

[tulsaslim]

So who's a "real" liberal? Bob Byrd?

 

Why, you making a hit list?

[DanvillRob]

Why' date=' you making a hit list?

[/quote']

 

HAHA.... well, for Byrd, he probably won't last long enough for me to make it to West Virginia!

[milod]

See what I mean in terms of "debate?"

 

<grin>

 

Now, imagine yourselves trying to write a story for tv or newspaper about two folks debating who is and who isn't of a given political philosophy after a big brouhaha about various cable TV news outlets.

 

<bigger grin>

 

How do you "cover" the story? How do you angle it? Who do you quote first? What additional questions do you ask such as "what do you think of the way the whole debate has gone?"

 

Note that "who is a liberal" or "who is a conservative" is very much a matter of opinion - and let's face it, an honorable person may well have a "conservative" opinion on one issue and a "liberal" opinion on another. I've a 60s "left winger" friend who is extremely conservative on matters of legalized personal relationships but IMHO a socialist on other stuff. I've even known "communists" of the 50s variety who personally were quite conservative. Married, kids, go to work, teach the kids how to fish, care for aging parents...

 

I'm also reminded of a TV station owner/manager who replied to a complaint that his station had been breaking "news release" times designed so every medium had an "even shot" at the story.

 

He was asked to tell his "news people" not to do that.

 

His reply was, "News people? @#$$, I've got some actors and clowns, but...."

 

That's one I've never forgotten.

 

KSG ...

 

I'd say that nowadays even the who, what, when and where are placed into question. The why follows.

 

There's an additional one that seems to take precedence, and that's "what do people think."

 

The problem is, you can make two people into a political movement, or an irrelevance, by how you quote or don't quote their opinions regardless of facts.

 

So... whatta yah think of that? <chuckle>

 

m

[KSG_Standard]

CB makes a good point.

 

Here's an outgrowth of it... Let's say station "A" gets a story about a plane crash' date=' nice straight coverage. Station "B" has to "cover" it too, but the news director wants "a different angle." Ditto station "C."

 

See where that's going?

 

In "political" coverage, there are angles that seem important from one perspective and not important from others.

 

Then there's the "what do people think about this" when you know darned well they really don't know much - but tears or shouts of anger seem to be more important than an explanation of facts.

 

Frankly the "health care debate" bugs me a lot because I question that anybody, including folks in Congress, really knows what's in that X thousand-page bill and what the consequences, intended and unintended, will be.

 

Here again, I hear people on both sides arguing from passion, not facts, and especially the tv coverage is about passion, not facts. That tends to bother me a bit. Problem is, folks on both sides seem to prefer passion to facts and couch their arguments accordingly.

 

m

[/quote']

 

I agree milod. The thing is, it seems to me, that news has always been reported and presented with somebody's perspective and personality spun into it. We can all look at the same thing and all see it differently.

 

Walter Cronkite saw the Tet Offensive from Saigon and determined that America had lost the war. Other correspondents in the field saw the offensive differently and thought that the Viet Cong had lost badly and were probably weakened to the point of destruction. Cronkite reported what he saw, the way he saw it and then he voiced his opinion based on his reality. It must happen all the time...

 

And facts are not always evident or factual to everybody in the same way. You know what they say about statistics...

 

 

What is it they teach in journalism school? Who, What, Where, When and How...Why seems to be more about opinion than fact.

 

What do you think?

[milod]

Oops...

 

I was slow on the trigger so my comment preceeds KSG's.

 

m

[tulsaslim]

Milo, you are a guy that will appreciate this and hopefully be able to back me up here. Back in 1973 when the Watergate hearings were going on I spent 4 months working in the Homestake mine in Lead.

That area of the Black Hills had exactly ONE TV station (I think it was out of Lead) that had no local staff and apparently was affliliated with at least two of the networks.

It didn't even start broadcasting until about 10 am, when it carried ABC until about 5pm, when it abruptly switched to NBC (nevermind if it was in the middle of a program), and then went off the air at about 10 pm.

Do you remember that station?

[DanvillRob]

Milo' date=' you are a guy that will appreciate this and hopefully be able to back me up here. Back in 1973 when the Watergate hearings were going on I spent 4 months working in the Homestake mine in Lead.

That area of the Black Hills had exactly ONE TV station (I think it was out of Lead) that had no local staff and apparently was affliliated with at least two of the networks.

It didn't even start broadcasting until about 10 am, when it carried ABC until about 5pm, when it abruptly switched to NBC (nevermind if it was in the middle of a program), and then went off the air at about 10 pm.

Do you remember that station?[/quote']

 

Years ago, my next door neighbor was the Comptroller for Homestake Mines, Bob Watson.

[milod]

I think it was KOTA... Offices in Rapid. But I think also there was at least one other station by then, but the problem was the hills around Deadwood and Lead, so there was a repeater up there, I think on Terry Peak.

 

In '73 my Dad was in Deadwood, btw, so I visited and wasn't watchin' much of the tube.

 

m