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

[DanvillRob]

 

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

 

m

[/quote']

 

Gotta watch them "aces 'n eights"!

[tulsaslim]

Years ago' date=' my next door neighbor was the Comptroller for Homestake Mines, Bob Watson.[/quote']

Yep, Homestake's headquarters was in S.F. Our checks came from Bank of America in S.F.

 

You could be right, Milo. I lived on the adjacent mountain from Terry Peak. When you exited off 285 south of Lead heading toward Terry Peak about half-way up the hill there was a fork in the road. Left took you to Terry Peak. Right took you to my house about 2 miles up the road.

[DanvillRob]

Yep' date=' Homestake's headquarters was in S.F. Our checks came from Bank of America in S.F.[/quote']

 

Yeah... I recall he was stuck over in SF for a couple of days after the '89 earthquake. I think he got Alzheimers and finally died.... too bad.....

[milod]

Back in the 60s and 70s my place of finding red-eye was the #10 in Deadwood. Technically it aint' the exact site where Wm. played his last hand, but...

 

It's a lot different there now, but still a great place if anybody's looking for a pretty inexpensive getaway in the hills. The trick is like any other vacation, don't rush. There's gaming legally there now, too. Not the high-roller kind, but...

 

A friend does a great Bill or Seth Bullock, either one. His wife comes up with some spooky stuff in the "haunted" Bullock hotel that's much as it was over a century ago.

 

Deadwood's a fun place. A great mid-July rodeo, too, that's the continent's best mid-size PRCA rodeo for years in a row. July 4 the Belle Fourche Roundup is more ... personal and more in ways like the old days. The two rodeo committees work well together since they're only 30 miles or so apart.

 

m

[DanvillRob]

Deadwood's a fun place. A great mid-July rodeo' date=' too, that's the continent's best mid-size PRCA rodeo for years in a row. July 4 the Belle Fourche Roundup is more ... personal and more in ways like the old days. The two rodeo committees work well together since they're only 30 miles or so apart.

 

m

[/quote']

 

When is Calgary's Stampede, August?

[milod]

STarts July 9 in Calgary...

 

I didn't check what and how.

 

Maybe Karen knows more.

 

Good money for a good cowboy or barrel racer.

 

m

[TommyK]

.....

I can tell you this about the news' date=' though: Much has to do with various perspectives of what is important, and [b']what is perceived to be important to the "audience[/b]."..

 

Sadly... this is not news reporting. It is telling people what they want to hear. ergo, it is entertainment dressed up to look like legitimate news, interspersed with sound bits of actual, important news.

[tulsaslim]

Back in the early '80's I played two places in Deadwood several times- the #10 and a place right across the street. A couple of weeks ago the bass player from my band in those days called and was trying to remember if the #10 was the place that had the bar in a 'front' room and the band played in a room 'in the back' with peanut shells on the floor.

Is that the #10, Milo?

 

And Cheyenne Frontier Days is a pretty good party, too, huh? And the Stugis rally in your back yard.

[milod]

Tulsa...

Yup, sounds like #10. Ain't been to Frontier Days since '53. Yup, I'm old enough to remember the parade and rodeo. Sturgis is about 30 miles away. Hate to admit this, but unless I'm paid, I stay away from crowds.

 

--------

Tommy...

I wouldn't agree about the "audience." For example, in a local newspaper a sidewalk issue might get front page coverage and only a couple of paragraphs in another venue or be ignored on national TV unless there's a little old lady who feels cheated and makes good video - which then is as you said.

 

Rodeo is a big deal here because there are so many folks involved at all levels. It likely isn't covered much in different sorts of places. Here it's a combination of economic development, sport, tourism promotion and major regional celebration.

 

Tip O'Neil said all politics is local. In a sense, so is all "news." But different audiences will have different interests. The trick is tailoring material to local interests and concerns.

 

I'm critical of some stuff in some ways, but... media that maintains readership or audience is hitting a chord that "works." Everything is "entertainment" except your job and stuff that personally affects you right now, or at least what you believe affects you right now. That latter is what gets into "politics" and "entertainment." Personally I don't care to hear an every night rehash of some lost kid in California because it has no effect on my life. A new street project through town hits me every day - and is utterly irrelevant to you.

 

m

[NeoConMan]

entertainment dressed up to look like legitimate news' date=' interspersed with sound bits of actual, important news.[/quote']

Anybody else see the parallel between Good Morning America and the National Enquirererer?

 

Put just enough fact in the picture to make you wonder if the rest might actually be true...

[charlie brown]

I agree milod. The thing is' date=' 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.

 

[b']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...[/b]

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?

 

 

Yeah, that he did...but, more from a political perspective, than militarily. Militarily, the US never lost a battle,

of any consequence...so they claim...especially, if you consider it as a war of "attrition." 20+ of theirs,

to 1 of ours.

 

"Unbiased" reporting is an "ideal," lofty or otherwise, and frankly, not all that tenable. Reporters, are human beings,

after all. They have all the bias, and prejudices, forged by their own life experiences, to contend with, just like the

rest of us. However, Fairness (and accuracy), based on facts, as opposed to emotional rhetoric, SHOULD be more

in common, or at least strived for. And, in fairness to most good/great journalists, I think it still IS. Even though...

Nowadays, seemingly, ALL of that is up for grabs? Too much "Flash," and not nearly enough substance, across the board...IMHO.

The danger is, that pretty soon (if not already), you won't/don't KNOW, who to believe, how much to believe, and/or

what the "real agenda" even is.

 

CB

[Blackie]

The Cronkite example is quite true in that his commentary turned the Nation against the war when they heard it from him. The facts on the ground were quite the contrary and the VC was destroyed as a force after Tet in 68, and the US never lost any major battle in Vietnam.

Cronkites damage was done though and as public opinion shifted against the war......the politicians followed suit.

We bombed them to the peace table by finally hitting them hard in the North and in there refuges in Cambodia.

But our will was gone and we did'nt follow through with our pledge to resume massive bombing as the massive NVA incursion into the south

procceded. We pretty much said f-ck it. Same thing is going to happen in Afghanistan ans Iraq.

 

We had to destroy the village to save it..........yep.

[milod]

Okay... To get this back away from "politics...."

 

I think there are some difficulties in determining perspective. I'm not sure those who share my perspective, or yours, are always entirely "right" on any major sort of issue. Even if it's an airliner crash, what's "important" to tell the public?

 

You tell me. <grin> Seriously, ask yourself. Write down four major points of "coverage" you think is important. Will I agree, or Neo or Tulsa or Karen or one of the younger guys on the forums? I dunno. But you'll see that it's not all that simple once you get past the first, "an airliner crashed at the Sioux City, Iowa, airport after airborne malfunctions. The number of casualties and survivors is not yet known, but firefighters and volunteers are searching corn fields..." Ask yourself, what coverage comes next?

 

The Vietnam issue - regardless of my "opinion" or yours - is a good example of perspectives that may all be valid but return different visions of "news." Ditto any "war" or coal mine rescues or adding offshore drilling for oil.

 

Imagine being a reporter told to "follow the coal mine rescue in West Virginia."

 

Nothing is happening below ground. Why not? What or who is to blame? Are state or federal officials bringing safety complaints forward? What do families of the miners think?

 

Yeah, you can say "if it bleeds, it leads," but let's consider that to many people who follow "news" as a profession, stuff involving coal mining is a big piece of the overall energy puzzle and therefore the overall economic puzzle worldwide.

 

How much do you write that doesn't bore people to death even if it's important and shows those relationships above?

 

So... people are talking about it, give them another dose. How? You figure it out, "Mr. Reporter."

 

m

[cwness]

I guess I'll add my Deadwood story. Milo you know the little train they have

in Deadwood? My dad and I have a RR signal Company and installed all the

signals for the State for that RR

 

I was there for the big flood also. My high Y (YMCA group) went on a camping

trip and were a Pactola camping when it started. Lost all are gear and bearly

made back to Rapid. Watch the storm from the YMCA. Pulled bodies out of

the river the next day volunteering. When the lighting hit the the poles it

would be a big green flash from transformers. The highlight was to kill some

time before the power went out we went to a movie. Flesh Gordon talk about

funny.

 

CW

[charlie brown]

Well, again...I have not so much a problem with what's actually reported, even in really sketchy prelim's, as long as the

facts, as they KNOW them, at the time, are as accurate, as they can be. Especially, on "Breaking News/Stories."

What "I" object to, is all the superficial "fluff" that is needed, to apease the advertising folks, that pay the salaries, of the

now "celebrity" reporters, or anchors. "News," should be above that kind of "celebrity!" IMHO

It's ok, to pay them a good/great salary, for what they DO. But, making media "stars" out of them, only pollutes their integrity...or at the very least, casts suspicion, from the "average joe" listening. It's kind of the same, with "pretty people" populating the news rooms, now...even though, it's a well know fact, that most everyone will "listen" more, to a "pretty person," than a less attractive one, initially, anyway.

 

The other thing/factor, is that the public has the attention span or a Gnat, and so the "news" must be able to Grab,

that short attention, with as much impact, as possible....just to make someone want to stick around the channel,

long enough to actually find out, what is REALLY going on. And, because of that, "Facts" can get lost, in the hype.

So...I guess we're as much to blame, as the media, anymore??? Who knows? ;>b

 

CB

[milod]

CB...

 

I think your last point pretty well hit it - plus another factor. Any "time" content, whether a movie or a music recording, has a finite time in which to retain the listener/watcher. The same is true of anything else that must hold one's attention for a period of time. Something has to interest the listener/watcher, or they switch it off one way or another.

 

With a magazine or newspaper, you simply turn another page of the same product. With TV or radio, you switch to another channel or go to the kitchen for munchies.

 

That, I think, is one reason why tv "news shows" have become increasingly just that: shows. They know they have to maintain sufficient pacing to hold interest. Newspapers have had a basic pattern for over a century of "here's this kinda news and we've packaged it for you so you can scan and read what trips your trigger." Magazines basically ditto.

 

Yes, they take time to read, but not all right now - and if you put them down, the content does not go away.

 

Radio and TV have to figure a variation of the "play" that has been in use since ancient times. It is time dependent and paced to hold audience interest.

 

That "play" theme is better for varieties of commentary than in reporting "news." It took a while for that to reflect in tv "news shows," but I think it is. It can anger both right and left, although with different stations involved - and even the anger itself becomes a method of holding audience. Who cares if Fox is fascist and CNN is commie? Not either of them because a big PR battle means more people watch either or both.

 

But read up on the newspaper nastiness in Andrew Jackson's campaign for the presidency. Then just for the heck of it, imagine yourself in that period of time and on one side or the other. It makes CNN v FOX look like little kid stuff.

 

m

[Mr. Robot]

I am coming in late on this one, but I have to say this.

 

I was always taught that the ethics of journalism were as follows:

 

-report the facts

-Opinion (ie editorial) should be separate and clearly identified as such.

 

Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. Increasingly, particularly the less reputable news sources, disguise editorial comment and opinion as reporting.

 

For example, doing a number on a politician and calling for them to resign on page 1 or 3 is OPINION, not reporting.

 

In so doing, they are misusing their position and power to influence opinion, according to the wishes of the media owner.

 

The Murdoch group are the worst offenders and were the ones who led the charge and threw out most of the rules of respectable journalism. There are lots of ratbags in editorial offices these days, which is a great pity.

 

Today, I actually rate most journalism far lower in integrity than I do the politicians who they brazenly criticise with such hypocracy. They accuse politicians of being unethical, yet they are regularly caught out taking Cash for Comment and , manufacturing stories, paying people to dump on others etc etc.

 

They regularly destroy people's lives using a level of vindictiveness that would make JR Ewing blush.

 

I think they have far too much power and influence and are totally unaccountable - regardless of whether you are liberal or conservative.

 

Yes you can turn the TV off - but there arent many choices for alternative accurate reporting if you want news.

 

The internet has made it even worse.

[charlie brown]

Agreed, Milrod...the "Play" though, too often obscures content, or dilutes it, after a time. Which is something

print media (aside from wading through tons of advertising pages), isn't burdened with, as much. As

you rightfully pointed out, we (the readers) can read, more in depth coverage, at our leisure, and also

have an easily accessible resouce, to go back to, re-check, etc. With TV and Radio...unless you T-vo or

tape it, it isn't as accessible, later. Problem there is, that newspapers (especially), are going out of business.

 

There's another thing, too. "Information Overload!" People, after a while, just "tune out." With the competition,

"confrontation/anger," and/or "silliness" etc. between networks, (repetitive) 24-hours a day, on multiple channels...

after awhile, people (rightly, or not) get bored, confused, fed up! So, rather than concentrating on Content, for

the reasons you stated, the "Show/Play" becomes center stage, in order to constantly up the ante, to keep the

viewers "entertained!" IF they just happen, to get some "Facts," in the mix (by design, or by accident), so much

the better. ;>)

 

CB

[NeoConMan]

But read up on the newspaper nastiness in Andrew Jackson's campaign for the presidency.....

It makes CNN v FOX look like little kid stuff.

THAT is no lie.

 

Milod' date=' you know how much I love to be a contrarian who uses convenient facts like a Big Stick.

Hyperbole and histrionics just for kicks with humor concealed ever so so slightly....

.... and of course the Big Stick at the ready to knock some screwball pitch over the fences, eh?

C'mon, it's all in fun....

 

:-)

 

The example you give of Andrew Jackson is an excellent one.

There's even a couple of TV programs running regularly on the History Channel and such that illustrate it.

It was brutal, and the stuff with his wife Rachel could have very well ended in justifiable killings at the time.

 

(Even today, I would share the same sentiment - some things never go out of "style" if you know what I mean...)

 

In his shoes (I've tried to place myself in many of our Founding Fathers shoes) I don't know how different

my actions would have been. His treatment of the Native Americans was terrible, but I identify with him easily.

He stood his ground many times long after the fast talkers had run for cover - and he prevailed.

 

Mark Twain is another that engaged in some serious mudslinging, although with much humor.

His direct involvement surprised me in a few political skirmishes, and would be frowned upon today.

[milod]

Well...

 

I could tell some tales... <grin> Some other time...

 

I think CB hit one factor that concerns me, and that's "information overload." Yup. Even "research on a new amp" can keep you going for weeks, if not months.

 

I think that in general newspapers still offer the best general reportage but we're in an era today of "feelings" and "reaction" tending to take a much greater priority than when I started some 45 years ago.

 

In government and crime reporting, I think that's one reason I see people walking into courtrooms half terrified because they haven't the slightest idea of the process unless they've already been there since they were 10. And I'm talking even about "spectators" and "victims" as well as witnesses and defendants. In civil cases they sit there on either side looking like deer caught in the headlights. That wasn't true 40 years ago.

 

Whatever... <grin>

 

I do think that, as I've said, we have a lot of learning as a culture in terms of how we find and process information. Heck, I'm flamboozled at finding college grads that don't know if the Vietnam War was before or after the Korean War and whether both were between World Wars I and II. The Spanish-American War? Say what?

 

That's why the "Vietnam arguments" don't get me going as they used to. To me, the real concern isn't the politics of that world, national and personal situation, as the fact that so many people born long afterward haven't the slightest idea what "we" are talking about. Face it, you can be voting this fall and not have the slightest idea about Desert Storm and not have an "adult" (older than age 10) perspective of 9-11.

 

But perhaps that's just an old man talking.

 

m

[jaxson50]

Until cable TV came along we had three networks, each delivered national news for 30 min.'s. This was during the Cold War, race and anti war riots, the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations. This was also during the Manson murder's, the Gien murder rampage, Hickcock and Smith, the SLA and the Vietnam and Korean Wars.

I do not believe we were misinformed during those years. Today if a goat gets shot after wandering into a battle zone in Iraq we get three hours of "news" coverage on the topic. OJ Simpson received more coverage in his two trials than the whole Korean War did, in fact his trial was aired live then rehashed on several networks.

We are living in a time of news overload. News stories that would have (maybe) made the local news thirty years ago now become sensationalized national stories that feed that 24/7 news machine that has become nothing more than a network of reality shows feeding on outrage and insults.

Can anyone imagine Cronkite, Edwards, Reasoner, Mudd or Hollenbeck reporting news in today's market?

[Blackie]

Right on the nail Jax............."News" is about meaningless now in the information overload era.

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

.

Can anyone imagine Cronkite' date=' Edwards, Reasoner, Mudd or Hollenbeck reporting news in today's market?[/quote']

 

 

I think everyone has made some good points, and we are lucky to have a guy like milod to give us such great perspective from a guy who was in the "show"

 

But this was a point that really stuck out to me, when I am umpiring as baseball game, what really happened on any particular, isnt as important was who saw what happened and where they are standing

 

in otherwords, the credibility of who is giving us our news (and the scriptwriters behind the teleprompter) cant be anywhere near what it was in years past right?

a blonde with an impressive rack will hold anybody's focus for a while, but do we really care what she has to say?

 

credibility has to be the missing link somewhere in all of this !

[KSG_Standard]

What were you saying jesse? You lost me at "blonde with impressive rack".

[myspace.com/jessenoah]

:P