Hi. I'm back from the beach now. Boy was it hot. My head really got fried today!
I love it that you were all talking about ME while I was gone. I really do rule this forum. Thank you all for being my fans!
Well, he's still delusional, so that may be a permanent thing with him. Notice how he gets all shy and reticent when we actually give him the attention he wants? He's probably just afraid to admit that he needs help.
USA was the last paper I subscribed to. But it became so pro-Obama I had to bail. It was mostly fluff anyway. I think people want news, features, etc. without the political spin.
I'm surprised that anybody really subscribes to that rag. I always thought that their entire circulation was given away for free at airports and hotels.
Hi. I'm back from the beach now. Boy was it hot. My head really got fried today!
I love it that you were all talking about ME while I was gone. I really do rule this forum. Thank you all for being my fans!
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, he's still delusional, so that may be a permanent thing with him. Notice how he gets all shy and reticent when we actually give him the attention he wants? He's probably just afraid to admit that he needs help.
The recent childish bitching in this thread has been deleted. I would like to draw your attention to posting guideline number 4, which includes the statement "attack ideas, not people". Personal attacks will not be tolerated whether they be aimed at an alleged "troll" or anyone else.
A lot of people are reading their iPads on the NYC Subway nowadays because it is just convenient to carry all your newspapers and magazines electronically.
No one has ever been mugged for a printed copy of USA Today but flashing around a shiny $800 iPad in the subway might be a little risky.
As if those icons of yellow journalism at CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC are any different...
Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.
USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.
Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.
USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.
Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant. Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.
As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant.
Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.
Quote:
Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.
As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.
I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.
Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.
I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.
Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.
Dave
The example you offer suggests to me the opposite conclusion. One of the trends of the last 30 years or so that started the general news spiral down the porcelain receptacle is the TV news preoccupation with sticking cameras in people's faces and asking them how they feel about something. As in, "your house just burned down, how do you feel about that?" Now we think of this as journalism I suppose, but it's not. And neither is all the "self reporting" you describe. A video of a riot in Tajikistan doesn't tell us anything about why it's happening, why we should care, or even where Tajikistan is located in the world. Putting this in proper context is the job of journalism. I'm sure it's an old-fashioned sentiment on my part, but I'd rather have news events correctly reported tomorrow by someone who understands them, than thrown into my face today by someone who doesn't.
I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
Very good. Dowdy Kitchen Man. We have him in the States too.
I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.
Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.
For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.
I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.
Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.
For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.
I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.
Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.
I don't watch any of the cable network news stations either, except when they are forced on me at places like airports and the like. The only TV news I watch is the NewsHour on PBS. It's the only news remaining on TV worth the time.
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Of course there's nothing new about yellow journalism. Newspaper reporting in the late 19th / early 20th century was rife with outrageous and completely untrue content. I think the period of time beginning with TV coverage of the Vietnam war, the space race, and the Watergate hearings was one in which major media news reporting was generally regarded as legitimate and trustworthy. In my opinion the inexorable slog downhill toward the inane muck that prevails today began shortly after the time of Gulf War I.
In the context of history, I think that brief chapter in legitimate "journalism" will be seen as an anomaly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.
That's exactly what I mean when I wrote about "nooz" having become a product that's packaged and sold, to a demographic with no more than an eighth grade comprehension level. I'm not buying.
Comments
Hi. I'm back from the beach now. Boy was it hot. My head really got fried today!
I love it that you were all talking about ME while I was gone. I really do rule this forum. Thank you all for being my fans!
Well, he's still delusional, so that may be a permanent thing with him. Notice how he gets all shy and reticent when we actually give him the attention he wants? He's probably just afraid to admit that he needs help.
USA was the last paper I subscribed to. But it became so pro-Obama I had to bail. It was mostly fluff anyway. I think people want news, features, etc. without the political spin.
I'm surprised that anybody really subscribes to that rag. I always thought that their entire circulation was given away for free at airports and hotels.
Hi. I'm back from the beach now. Boy was it hot. My head really got fried today!
I love it that you were all talking about ME while I was gone. I really do rule this forum. Thank you all for being my fans!
Well, he's still delusional, so that may be a permanent thing with him. Notice how he gets all shy and reticent when we actually give him the attention he wants? He's probably just afraid to admit that he needs help.
You're not making the situation any better.
The recent childish bitching in this thread has been deleted. I would like to draw your attention to posting guideline number 4, which includes the statement "attack ideas, not people". Personal attacks will not be tolerated whether they be aimed at an alleged "troll" or anyone else.
A lot of people are reading their iPads on the NYC Subway nowadays because it is just convenient to carry all your newspapers and magazines electronically.
No one has ever been mugged for a printed copy of USA Today but flashing around a shiny $800 iPad in the subway might be a little risky.
As if those icons of yellow journalism at CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC are any different...
Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.
USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.
Truthfully [disclaimer - no news organization in the present day is without some level of bias] I read a number of news feeds from elsewhere to get a more complete view on what's happening in the US. And I check the wireservices feeds as well to see who is spinning what off the feeds. I discount much of the reporting on most of the cable news services for that reason.
USAToday/Gannett runs very shallow on their reporting and usually if it isn't on the wires they don't cover it. Whether as a news service they can make the move and gain quality on their reporting remains to be seen.
Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant. Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.
As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.
Note that the term "yellow journalism" is used almost exclusively today as a stand-in for reporting stories that don't endorse the particular point of view espoused by the claimant.
Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.
Which is certainly not its original meaning. Note also the obvious omission in the list of networks which allegedly engage in it.
As you say, the real problem is the lack of depth and the reduction in the number of news agencies engaged in actual reporting, as opposed to repetition and editorializing. It's the product we are being sold today, and sadly most people are happily buying it.
I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.
Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.
Dave
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Which is usually enforced with sensationalism and crude exaggeration if you ask me. Interestingly the term was first seen way back in 1895 so what we are seeing is not new.
I dismiss this, to an extent anyways, because we actually have more people and organizations reporting "news" than we ever had in the past. Just look at any of the recent disasters that have hit the planet, be it Katrina, the Earthquake around the globe, or tidal waves washing ashore in distant lands. In many cases the traditional news outlets where the worst places to go for up to the minute information on what was going on. Yet any reasonable person could keep himself well informed via the alternative media or sources if you will.
Finally news of this sort really doesn't need the editorializing of the common media as you point out. You rightly point this out but what is funny or sad is that the major media sees editorializing as a way to deal with the raw access we have now. Frankly the stuff I call news is often self reporting, if you see a city wiped out by an earthquake, via numerous feeds, you really don't need ignorant editorial to tell you how bad it is. In many ways reporting on the news is an outmoded occupation.
Dave
The example you offer suggests to me the opposite conclusion. One of the trends of the last 30 years or so that started the general news spiral down the porcelain receptacle is the TV news preoccupation with sticking cameras in people's faces and asking them how they feel about something. As in, "your house just burned down, how do you feel about that?" Now we think of this as journalism I suppose, but it's not. And neither is all the "self reporting" you describe. A video of a riot in Tajikistan doesn't tell us anything about why it's happening, why we should care, or even where Tajikistan is located in the world. Putting this in proper context is the job of journalism. I'm sure it's an old-fashioned sentiment on my part, but I'd rather have news events correctly reported tomorrow by someone who understands them, than thrown into my face today by someone who doesn't.
I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
I second that. Always on point and hilarious.
One of my favourites: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHun58mz3vI
For those enjoying the debate on modern journalism, I strongly recommend you check out Charlie Brooker's Newswipe on You Tube (originally broadcast on BBC 4 in the UK).
Very good. Dowdy Kitchen Man. We have him in the States too.
I think all the editorializing that infects the cable news channels is a result primarily of the glut of time they have to fill. Commentators are relatively cheap. They don't have to do any actual reporting, can make stuff up as they go along, and get the audience all fired up. So that's the economics-driven road we've gone down. Used to be the major networks took pride in their news divisions, even though they usually lost money. No more. What's become obsolete is our interest in understanding.
Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.
For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.
I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.
Part of it is publicly traded for-profit corporations are legally required to maximize shareholder value. They can't just take a repeated loss if they can do something about it. Even if that wasn't true, news is also owned by large conglomerates, few are willing to take a sustained loss of any division just as a matter of pride, they have to justify costs to their shareholders. I think those factors have led to the situation where they strongly prefer information given to them rather than go out and find their own.
For the dedicated channels, having 24 hours to fill isn't helping either, they have to make 30 minutes' worth of news fill 24 hours.
I don't watch any cable news channel (or TV news for that matter), they're all too annoying, Two of them have very specific, painfully overt political agendas to boot, the others aren't as bad, but still annoying for one reason or another.
Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.
I don't watch any of the cable network news stations either, except when they are forced on me at places like airports and the like. The only TV news I watch is the NewsHour on PBS. It's the only news remaining on TV worth the time.
"journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration"
Of course there's nothing new about yellow journalism. Newspaper reporting in the late 19th / early 20th century was rife with outrageous and completely untrue content. I think the period of time beginning with TV coverage of the Vietnam war, the space race, and the Watergate hearings was one in which major media news reporting was generally regarded as legitimate and trustworthy. In my opinion the inexorable slog downhill toward the inane muck that prevails today began shortly after the time of Gulf War I.
In the context of history, I think that brief chapter in legitimate "journalism" will be seen as an anomaly.
Back in the good old/bad old days of the "big three" networks, the news departments were treated as loss-leaders. They were public corporations then too, but having respectable news programming was considered to be a point of pride which gave a gloss to everything else they did, or maybe even formed a bit of a counterbalance to other programming which was not so classy. Now with the profusion of 24/7 news channels each one has to make money on this programming alone. So they pander, and they've discovered the value of pandering to a preselected demographic.
That's exactly what I mean when I wrote about "nooz" having become a product that's packaged and sold, to a demographic with no more than an eighth grade comprehension level. I'm not buying.