Am I the only one who feels this way about the media?

[geekette]

There are reporters, journalists and sensationalists. they are not all the same. Between Cronkite and National Inquirer, there is lots of space. With the internet, anyone can get most anything "published". Reader beware. Watcher beware.

 

[geist1223]

How many times have you seen a National TV News lead "Breaking News." To realise you read about it a day or two earlier on the Internet.

 

[Ken555]

Let’s remember that to these “news” channels, if they can’t keep an audience they lose their advertisers. The tolerance for news has changed over the years and most, I believe, don’t want and are not interested in the news style of the 60s or 70s. If it’s not entertaining they just won’t watch. I’m fairly sure many on TUG, especially those participating in this thread, are not representative of the majority in the USA in this issue. Sadly, this is how advertisers influence the news, as well.

Whenever possible, I watch and read unedited interviews. Those tend to have the facts, since I can arbitrarily discount anything other than the person being interviewed and their comments, which in most cases is an expert in their field, etc. It isn’t always possible to find unedited interviews, so we are left with whatever segment the media decided to publish.

That said, it is interesting to explore how news stories get published these days. It’s a lot different than it used to be. I’m sure many of you would be surprised.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[DannyTS]

“If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed.” Mark Twain.
It seems that the media has not changed much because the human nature is probably the same as 200 years ago.

I do not agree with Traveltime on this, reading all sides is not a waste of time. Over the years I have made better personal decisions, I believe, this way. There are good and bad journalists everywhere, there are sometimes interests, sometimes there are cultural and regional differences that make people see things differently. Winning a Pulitzer is a big honor but the board members come from the largest media organizations in the country and they may have their biases as well.

People can read what they want to read: one newspaper, 10 on any side or none, fine with me. I do not like when the media is constantly trying to convince their readers/viewers that only their point of view is valid and the other side is evil. It is like there are afraid that people would open their eyes; I see this on both sides and it probably works for them very well.

 

[TravelTime]

I said it is a waste of time to read media that is garbage. This is different than reading a variety of media that are well respected with more or less balanced reporting. I am not going to read certain extremist media. I will not name names to avoid this becoming social contentious or political.

 

[VacationForever]

Each day I spend about 5 minutes to have a quick look at headlines on 2 news website CNN and Foxnews. Most of the time I don't click on any of the "news" to expand it. I just want to have a feel as to what these 2 networks are reporting. I consider myself very middle of the road moderate, yes I know I am mentioning politics here, so I tend to take an objective position when I read news. I don't watch TV news other than Golf Channel for live golf and Prime & Acorn for entertainment. I find that I don't get upset about politically biased news because I choose to ignore them.

 

[Ralph Sir Edward]

I suspect many of us would agree that if certain “journalists” were replaced by those who sell timeshares, we might not be able to tell them apart.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not true. The timeshare salesmen would be much more honest. . . .

After all, they're 100% honest about trying to sell you a timeshare!

 

[Chrispee]

I try my hardest to consume news from the entire spectrum in order to keep informed on the range of opinions. In my view the news is a lot like TUG lately though, the loudest few voices make it feel like the there is a great divide when in reality the bulk of people actually fall somewhere closer to the middle.

 

[Jan M.]

I grew up in a small town in Ohio. Our TV stations were out of Cleveland. After the news Dorothy Fuldheim came on with her program in which she discussed what was happening in the news. There was a clear line of separation. The news wasn't editorialized, that was her bailiwick. Whether you agreed with her or not on a particular topic her integrity as a journalist and educated insight were highly regarded. I've wondered if this is why I have so much trouble accepting the way the news is presented now.

I was in my 30's when she had a stroke at the age of 91 that ended her broadcasting career. She had been on the air all my life and she was my standard, what I thought of as normal. It surprised me to find out just how highly regarded she was outside of our small part of the world.

The following is part of what is on Wikipedia about her.

Dorothy Fuldheim (June 26, 1893 – November 3, 1989) was an American journalist and anchor, spending the majority of her career for The Cleveland Press and WEWS-TV, both based in Cleveland, Ohio.

Fuldheim has a role in United States television news history; she is credited with being the first woman in the United States to anchor a television news broadcast as well to host her own television show. She has been referred to as the "First Lady of Television News." [1]

Fuldheim began her television career at age 54 when she joined the staff of WEWS-TV Channel 5 in Cleveland, also owned by Scripps-Howard, in 1947. At that time, it was the only television station between New York and Chicago, besides Detroit. Despite spending her entire broadcasting career based in Cleveland, she traveled widely to cover a variety of news stories, and was regarded as a broadcaster of national importance.

In 1959, Fuldheim, who had been with the station before it even went on air, began to formulate her own newscast in response to the new "Eyewitness News" on KYW, which was the first half-hour newscast in the country. Fuldheim centered her newscast around her interviews, a general overview of the news, and her commentaries (during which the very opinionated Fuldheim frequently inserted her own opinions about the stories). Fuldheim was the first woman in the United States to have her own television news analysis program.

While the format of her show, "Highlights of the News", consisted primarily of news analysis, it also included commentary, book reviews and interviews. In the years that "Highlights of the News" aired, Fuldheim interviewed a number of diverse notable persons including the Duke of Windsor, Helen Keller, Barbara Walters and Martin Luther King Jr. She also interviewed several 20th-century American presidents.

Fuldheim, recognizable for her fiery red hair, was well known for her sometimes controversial opinions. She was not shy about supporting unpopular causes, nor in voicing her opposition if she disagreed with a guest. At times, Fuldheim could offend some members of her audience.

Fuldheim's long and distinguished career - where, at age 91, she still conducted interviews and read commentaries on-air three times every day - ended when she suffered a stroke on July 27, 1984, shortly after interviewing U.S. President Ronald Reagan via satellite. The station received so many phone calls from viewers asking about her condition that an automated answering machine service was set up, devoted to providing updates about her health.[6] She never again appeared on television and died in Cleveland five years later at the age of 96.[2]

 

[DaveNV]

I grew up in a small town in Ohio. Our TV stations were out of Cleveland. After the news Dorothy Fuldheim came on with her program in which she discussed what was happening in the news. There was a clear line of separation. The news wasn't editorialized, that was her bailiwick.

That is how I felt about Walter Cronkite when I was growing up. In our area, his evening news broadcast was initially just five minutes of headlines, tucked in at the end of a late-afternoon movie. Then it went to fifteen minutes, and later to a half hour. My family always watched him, because my parents felt he gave it to you direct, and not sugar coated. When "news" became "infotainment," things changed. And now it's the wild west out there. Seems like anybody can say anything they want now, true or not, and somebody else will take and run with it, declaring it to be the news of the land. People who don't read will hear it enough to believe it. And that signals the decline of critical thinking.

Dave

 

[dayooper]

I stopped watching the 24 hour cable opinion channels when I saw a segment that made me want to puke. The content didn’t matter, except it was a political topic of the time. It started with the anchors saying they got a text from a viewer that they saw something the regular viewers of this particular channel would get riled up over. They proceeded to talk about this issue for 15 minutes describing how horrible this event was, not once mentioning again it was an event that was texted from a view and no confirmation from the network. If someone came into the conversation after the first 30 seconds, they would have thought it was an actual news story.

That segment was done to rile people up and keep people watching. There was no integrity or care whether they were delivering quality news. It was one of the Big 3 cable “news” networks that did this.

 

[Steve Fatula]

I grew up in a small town in Ohio. Our TV stations were out of Cleveland. After the news Dorothy Fuldheim came on with her program in which she discussed what was happening in the news. There was a clear line of separation.

Ah yes, growing up in Cleveland, I remember her. We used to watch her! I was not aware of whatever happened to her, thanks!

 

[bbodb1]

Each day I spend about 5 minutes to have a quick look at headlines on 2 news website CNN and Foxnews. Most of the time I don't click on any of the "news" to expand it. I just want to have a feel as to what these 2 networks are reporting. I consider myself very middle of the road moderate, yes I know I am mentioning politics here, so I tend to take an objective position when I read news. I don't watch TV news other than Golf Channel for live golf and Prime & Acorn for entertainment. I find that I don't get upset about politically biased news because I choose to ignore them.

I want to emphasize something on this point that I think is very spot on. Like them or hate them, Fox and CNN are two of the most likely web sites to cover a lot of news as it happens. In other words, I can sample more stories (and quicker) on CNN and Fox because they are large enough (and have the resources) to cover a lot of news stories around the world and throughout the country.

Having found a story of interest on either of these sources, it now becomes my responsibility to read about said story on (hopefully) more trustworthy websites.

 

[JanT]

x3 Skier said it best: "Very few news outlets still maintain the separation from news and opinion that is the true function of journalism." I'll leave it at that in order to keep my post in line with TUG rules.

OK but what happened in 2008 that changed "true" journalism

or is that code for something ....

 

[Big Matt]

Just remember that they media is all about making money and selling advertisements. Other than that not for profit outlets, this is just a fact. The talking heads make a lot of money too. Think about it another way. Back in the olden days before cable TV there were three networks, lots of censorship, and what we would call professional reporters (Cronkite et al). All of the overhyped nonsense that we're constantly bombarded with wasn't there. I personally think that "the media" is reckless and dangerous. I'm not a fan

 

[beejaybee]

Ah Yes, Dorothy Fuldheim....
What I would like to see/read is a daily listing of events that occurred with links to the the complete news conference, journal article, database, etc. Snippets are virtually meaningless.
An example of such as snippet is a tv news report of, for example, a huge pile-up on the Ohio Turnpike. Ok, where exactly on the Ohio Turnpike? Or where exactly did a tornado touch down? Or frigid cold expected across the northeast?

 

[dago]

I read something recently that applies to this entire topic:

(Paraphrasing) "People don't want to hear your opinion. They want to hear their opinion coming out of your mouth."

I'm willing to give any media source credence until I find their reporting to be slanted into a biased, negative way. I want my news to be truthful, like Walter Cronkite said it, no matter how badly it may sting - facts, without the spin. When any media outlet shows me they are trying to paint a particular picture, or lean toward a certain bias, they've lost me as a viewer. The ABC TV affiliate in Seattle did that a few years ago when they were bought out by a known national syndicate with a very slanted political bias. The instant changes were palpable, as they tried to change public opinion to their agenda. I won't watch them any longer.

We tend to live in a siloed society right now, where everybody surrounds themselves with like-minded people. Nobody learns when they only repeat what the rest of them are saying. It can be difficult to find truth in any media outlet nowadays, including the Internet. One needs to keep their eyes and ears open, and sniff out the rats when they come along.

Dave

Well said; indeed I agree

 

[dago]

I grew up in a small town in Ohio. Our TV stations were out of Cleveland. After the news Dorothy Fuldheim came on with her program in which she discussed what was happening in the news. There was a clear line of separation. The news wasn't editorialized, that was her bailiwick. Whether you agreed with her or not on a particular topic her integrity as a journalist and educated insight were highly regarded. I've wondered if this is why I have so much trouble accepting the way the news is presented now.

I was in my 30's when she had a stroke at the age of 91 that ended her broadcasting career. She had been on the air all my life and she was my standard, what I thought of as normal. It surprised me to find out just how highly regarded she was outside of our small part of the world.

The following is part of what is on Wikipedia about her.

Dorothy Fuldheim (June 26, 1893 – November 3, 1989) was an American journalist and anchor, spending the majority of her career for The Cleveland Press and WEWS-TV, both based in Cleveland, Ohio.

Fuldheim has a role in United States television news history; she is credited with being the first woman in the United States to anchor a television news broadcast as well to host her own television show. She has been referred to as the "First Lady of Television News." [1]

Fuldheim began her television career at age 54 when she joined the staff of WEWS-TV Channel 5 in Cleveland, also owned by Scripps-Howard, in 1947. At that time, it was the only television station between New York and Chicago, besides Detroit. Despite spending her entire broadcasting career based in Cleveland, she traveled widely to cover a variety of news stories, and was regarded as a broadcaster of national importance.

In 1959, Fuldheim, who had been with the station before it even went on air, began to formulate her own newscast in response to the new "Eyewitness News" on KYW, which was the first half-hour newscast in the country. Fuldheim centered her newscast around her interviews, a general overview of the news, and her commentaries (during which the very opinionated Fuldheim frequently inserted her own opinions about the stories). Fuldheim was the first woman in the United States to have her own television news analysis program.

While the format of her show, "Highlights of the News", consisted primarily of news analysis, it also included commentary, book reviews and interviews. In the years that "Highlights of the News" aired, Fuldheim interviewed a number of diverse notable persons including the Duke of Windsor, Helen Keller, Barbara Walters and Martin Luther King Jr. She also interviewed several 20th-century American presidents.

Fuldheim, recognizable for her fiery red hair, was well known for her sometimes controversial opinions. She was not shy about supporting unpopular causes, nor in voicing her opposition if she disagreed with a guest. At times, Fuldheim could offend some members of her audience.

Fuldheim's long and distinguished career - where, at age 91, she still conducted interviews and read commentaries on-air three times every day - ended when she suffered a stroke on July 27, 1984, shortly after interviewing U.S. President Ronald Reagan via satellite. The station received so many phone calls from viewers asking about her condition that an automated answering machine service was set up, devoted to providing updates about her health.[6] She never again appeared on television and died in Cleveland five years later at the age of 96.[2]

I remember Dorothy Fuldheim - really admired her - Indeed, news broadcasting is not the same. Your view of her is spot on. Didn't know you were originally from Ohio.

 

[Conan]

Worth remembering that when Walter Cronkite was ready to give his editorial view of the Vietnam situation in early 1968 it was the last straw for LBJ’s prosecution of the war (although thanks to Nixon the end only came seven years later, on April 30, 1975).

 

[TravelTime]

It seems to me that the best reporters are those who are non partisan in their reporting (even if they have a party affiliation) and try to focus on the news in a balanced way. I do know of a few reporters who still fit this description. A couple I am thinking of are on cable news networks that I usually do not watch but I tune in to see their shows only. I must admit I also watch some very biased reporters (or should I say infotainment celebrities) but I know when I watch them, that they are completely biased. Usually it is just background noise while I am doing something else. The things I avoid completely are sensationalist media with extreme views that pass along conspiracy theories. It happens on both sides of the spectrum and I try to be aware of that. Every now and then, I get fooled though. I am not perfect. Fortunately, I usually find out pretty quickly when I have been fooled by the media.

 

[stmartinfan]

With the advent of the 24 hours cable news programming, those networks had lots of ours to fill...and not enough “real news” to do so. When CNN first launched it was actually a news station that covered breaking news and it's where you'd go to find out more Info about something that you had heard as a news flash somewhere. But its ratings would decline when there wasn't some big catastrophe or exciting event to draw viewers. To keep making money, they made their switch to become more analysis and opinion and were able to fill all those hours in a less costly way. Then Fox was launched as a counter programmer to the more liberal views that CNN typically aired....and that was the start of the cable news networks we're now stuck with. Since they make money with their current programming, they are unlikely to change and become more even handed.

 

[MrockStar]

I suspect that most TV news shows have enough hot air coming out of their mouths to fill a hot air balloon festival.

 

[Passepartout]

I suspect there are enough 'news' sources that almost anyone can find one that agrees with the majority of their alignment. Today, most people listen/watch news that is the same as their thinking. And then, they consider whatever it is 'middle-of-the-road' non- or at least un- prejudiced.

I'm as guilty as anybody for discounting links to Fox as someone else would avoid MSNBC links. NOBODY is innocent of this. So be it.

Jim

 

[DrQ]

In addition monetization of the television news by creating boutique news channels appealing to certain demographics, the news cycle has been compressed to the point that there is such a rush to publish there is no time for accuracy and depth.

Newspaper's would have 24 hours to write and check a story. There used to be EDITORS which upheld standards. Television pretty much followed that model. With the exception of an extraordinary event, it was relegated to the nightly "National 6:00 News". It was treated as a loss leader to show that they provided a public service in addition to entertainment. The network news very conservative and that's why it was such a big deal when Walter Cronkite came out against the Viet Nam war.

In the 1970's, CBS started 60 minutes which as a "News Magazine". This started blurring the lines between hard news and entertainment. In order to keep its spot, 60 Minutes had to garner eyeballs for ratings. This meant that in addition to providing the details, the stories had to be compelling. Other networks followed down the path.

In order to get the spectacular results on camera, here are some of the things which were reported but not disclosed:

• 60 Minutes - 1980 Jeep CJ tipping - Did not disclose out of 435 runs they got 8 roll-overs using servo which could apply controls faster than humanly possible.
• 60 Minutes - 1986 Audi Sudden Acceleration - Did not disclose that the car had been modified by drilling a hole into the transmission and used a tank to inject a fluid into it.
• Dateline NBC - GM Truck Saddle Tank Fires - Did not disclose that they had lit flares to insure any spilled gasoline would catch fire.

Some of these stories were most likely pitched to these programs from laws groups in hopes to strengthen their arguments.

In 1980, CNN entered the scene and we started the 24 hour a day / minute by minute news cycle started. Ted Turner had successfully monetized television news. Smaller and independent markets started using CNN in order to economize in their news costs. Being owned by Ted Turner, CNN either consciously or unconsciously in its slant on the news and commentary.

Sixteen years later MSNBC and Fox News came on board. Rupert Murdoch/Roger Ailes saw an opportunity to stand out by appealing to a conservative audience and started the era of boutique news. In 2008 MSNBC doubled down and changed its programming to surpass CNN in ratings.

Now I treat "News" as "Entertainment" and filter it as such.

 

[TravelTime]

My pet peeve is the grammar mistakes in the online media. The editors, if they have them, are probably too rushed to properly edit. I find grammatical errors even in the most prominent media. I cringe every time I notice grammatical errors. I need to fix it in my mind before I can keep reading.