Whatever became of real American news outlets ?

1. 0

   ahorsebackposted 10 years ago

   The "Tabloidization "  of our news programs  began a major downhill slide in the integrity of news programs  , accuracy  , honesty, integrity , are now pre-historic media qualities .  Just how do the new "hit's " pay off for them on the internet ? It used to be selling newspapers ,  or how many viewers  one had at primetime . Is it all about  advertising ?  Anyone else tired of todays  air-headed  news anchors ?  The coverage of a  select few P.C. issues over the more major  issues?

   replyreport
   1. 70

      rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The top news organizations are owned by companies that are heavily vested in entertainment. With News Corporation being one of the only corporations dedicated to news. These corporations are dedicated to making a profit. The endless infomercial on what movie is out and what television show to watch is not a review but a commercial reported as news. These corporations are not about informing but more involved with "selling" you something whether it be a product or a policy.
      
      http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6- … ica-2012-6
      
      http://www.stateofthemedia.org/media-ownership/

      replyreport
   2. 85

      GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You make a good point about the change in news priorities, but I think you are blaming the messenger, (news media outlets), and not the real culprit - us, the viewers.
      
      News organs, from early handbills and newspapers to modern sources like online outlets, have always been tools - either for powerful influencers(sp?), or their product consumers.
      
      As you mentioned, news outlets are in it for the money, (no matter how much they proclaim their public service or watchdog motivations). They are going to emphasize the news their consumers tell them they want. If Bruce Jenner's life choices and actions get more coverage than gang murders in some city - it is because the outlets know that is what their viewers want.
      
      Even those few that proclaim their independence from money motivation, (NPR, etc.), are influenced by their viewers. I listen to NPR a lot, but I am aware that they too have a definate bias concerning what news they present, and how they present it.
      
      I think an obvious illustration of this perspective is the popularity and proliferation of, (what I consider), inane "reality" shows. Stuff like; "Honey Boo Boo, (ya gotta Google that one if you don't already know about it), Desperate Housewives, etc.
      
      Sure news presentations have changed, but that change has been to meet their consumer and prime mover demands .
      
      On the other hand... what makes your characterization of a topic as just P.C. B.S. right - when to someone else that BS PC might be news that is important to them?
      
      Just sayin'
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 70

         rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         You should read "Bias" by Bernie Goldberg. He has moved on to sports news because he blew the whole news manipulation apart since leaving CBS. He found that there is a manipulation of not reporting or reporting the opinions of the what the network deems influential in their favor. It is an outright direction they pursue as a result of influence and not news..

         replyreport
         1. 85

            GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Hmm... sounds like a condensed version of what I said - only your focus is on the "influencers" whereas I think the "consumer's" preferences play almost as large a role.
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 70

               rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

               I would agree but for the choices we are given. The news is usually the same coverage on different outlets and with TV a lot are even in the same time slots. The BBC was recently discontinued on my cable provider which really pissed me off as that was virtually the only international news available. Daily war reports were coming through them as well as European news. Your contention is the market supports what it watches is what I question. I contend that the market is ruled by what they want us to believe. You must read the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg to understand what I am proposing. There is not enough room for me to condense the book for you here.

               replyreport
               1. 43

                  Writer Foxposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You can watch it online here: http://www.wherever.tv/tv-channels/BBC-News-24.jsf

                  replyreport
                  1. 70

                     rhamsonposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you and I will watch. My question is why is it discontinued unless the news being reported is not very popular? Is America happy to have the news digested and relayed to them through someone else's view? If that is the case we are in deep trouble.
                     
                     "I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crises. The great point is to bring them the real facts."    Abraham Lincoln

                     replyreport
      2. 0

         ahorsebackposted 10 years agoin reply to this

         GA , I too listen to NPR quite a lot actually ,  Fox , and the others too . My need is to see the differences actually !  I agree ,  Yes though , I do blame the messenger entirely ,  Soros and the Koche bros. are not a news  media entity !   No one would listen to them !    If the are not the real news  messenger to blame  ;  they are sure as hell faking it really well !

         replyreport