More evidence that the news sucks

[ckg68]

I mean,we're getting into the teeth of the election season. A prime time to do reports on the candidates and the issues. And what do we get?

An average of 36 seconds of news on the elections in a number of markets in the Midwest. And,no doubt,this is the same in other areas of the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_el_ge/election_coverage

Even worse,the stuff we DO get is tied into polls-the "horse race" crap we're subjected to every damned election cycle-or campaign strategy. No look at issues. Nothing.

It's pathetic. When you have ads for candidates being the best source of info about a candidate(or the other one),that says much about the level of discourse. This is not how to get an informed citizenry.

[Gibby]

Good stuff ckg. Thank God for C-Span anyways. At least they show debates. Its the only way I found out about Lydia Lewis (MO, progressive). The news media has crashed into infotainment. Sure Rather, Brokaw, Jennings etal were biased and overtly liberal but at least they presented news the new "anchors" suck.

[Gibby]

I mean,we're getting into the teeth of the election season. A prime time to do reports on the candidates and the issues. And what do we get?

An average of 36 seconds of news on the elections in a number of markets in the Midwest. And,no doubt,this is the same in other areas of the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_el_ge/election_coverage

Even worse,the stuff we DO get is tied into polls-the "horse race" crap we're subjected to every damned election cycle-or campaign strategy. No look at issues. Nothing.

It's pathetic. When you have ads for candidates being the best source of info about a candidate(or the other one),that says much about the level of discourse. This is not how to get an informed citizenry.


There it is ckg, the beginning of the death of the republic.

[ckg68]

There's enough material out there to call into dispute at least one,if not two,of the anchors you mentioned as being liberal.

If you want,run their names through FAIR(http://www.fair.org/ )'s search engine and see what you come up with.

[JLB]

Excellent thread and presentation right on the money.

[Gibby]

There's enough material out there to call into dispute at least one,if not two,of the anchors you mentioned as being liberal.

If you want,run their names through FAIR(http://www.fair.org/ )'s search engine and see what you come up with.

my bad, I'm just using common knowledge on that one. You are quite correct CKG, the media is mostly corporate. This is what is so bad because the news only advertises television shows on that network and they are slaves to the corporations that own them. CBS, remember Rather, is corporate and its parent company's owner said Bush is good for business. I am of the opinion that there is an alarming mixture of entertainment with information and it is alarming. People don't pay attention to politics and so instead of having their sacred duty as watch dog the media instead only focuses on a candidate or politician when they have an adulterous affair or pork a minor because sex and scandal sell. They don't report news about the economy or policy except Iraq because its a free human interest story.

CBS, which I used to be a huge fan of, is leading the race to the bottom. I watched it yesterday for the first time in weeks to see if I was wrong about my suspicions and I clocked what I would consider news worthy material at less than five minutes. This trend must stop. An ignorant public that votes for demagogues will undermine a republic very quickly. As will a nation with a weakening middle class. We are seeing both, IMHO, and should be very worried about this.

[rob on the job]

I think everyone here knows my sour feelings about journalism, where I worked for more than a quarter-century.

Newspapers and magazines do a better job than broadcasting at covering real issues, but that's not saying much. Broadcasting reportage is rancid, and yet it is the dominant medium. Nobody reads anymore.

You can't stir up viewers by discussing trade deficits and budget overruns, but you can raise a modicum of interest -- and still appear, you know, "newsy" -- by covering political campaigns like they were popularity contests.

You can't lose in American journalism by playing to the lowest common denominator.

[Gibby]

I think everyone here knows my sour feelings about journalism, where I worked for more than a quarter-century.

Newspapers and magazines do a better job than broadcasting at covering real issues, but that's not saying much. Broadcasting reportage is rancid, and yet it is the dominant medium. Nobody reads anymore.

You can't stir up viewers by discussing trade deficits and budget overruns, but you can raise a modicum of interest -- and still appear, you know, "newsy" -- by covering political campaigns like they were popularity contests.

You can't lose in American journalism by playing to the lowest common denominator.

Very good post, and very sad.

[Gibby]

You can't lose in American journalism by playing to the lowest common denominator.

Don't believe him yet? Just watch the CBS evening "news"

[rob on the job]

Don't believe him yet? Just watch the CBS evening "news"

What an abortion.

Some six-figure-salary dimwit thinks it will make CBS "hip" if it hires Katie Couric to deliver news in a cable-like form.

Result: A loss of 3 million viewers from Bob Schieffer's audience and a new demographic of 59 years old.

CBS would have been a lot "hipper" if it had hired Steve Colbert to read the news.

[Gibby]

CBS would have been a lot "hipper" if it had hired Steve Colbert to read the news.

Anyone would be hipper if they hired Steve to read the news. Hell, Rob Cordory would be an improvement over Katie. Oh and don't tell my lady this but I think since CBS wants to sell Katie they need to show her legs if not full frontal nudity.

[Gibby]

Result: A loss of 3 million viewers from Bob Schieffer's audience and a new demographic of 59 years old.

CBS would have been a lot "hipper" if it had hired Steve Colbert to read the news.

Well Rob, the only problem with this is that Steve would actually tell the truth on the news and would actual entertain people while talking about the news. That and Rob Cordory would outclass any foreign corespondent. Could you imagine it?

[rob on the job]

... I think since CBS wants to sell Katie they need to show her legs if not full frontal nudity.

I'll pass on seeing Katie's crabs.

[JLB]

I'll pass on seeing Katie's crabs.

We have seen way to much of her already externally internally enough is enough!!!!

[anEinherjer]

I mean,we're getting into the teeth of the election season. A prime time to do reports on the candidates and the issues. And what do we get?

An average of 36 seconds of news on the elections in a number of markets in the Midwest. And,no doubt,this is the same in other areas of the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061012/ap_on_el_ge/election_coverage

Even worse,the stuff we DO get is tied into polls-the "horse race" crap we're subjected to every damned election cycle-or campaign strategy. No look at issues. Nothing.

It's pathetic. When you have ads for candidates being the best source of info about a candidate(or the other one),that says much about the level of discourse. This is not how to get an informed citizenry.

Too bad everyone's hero McCain decided that our "quote first amendment rights" don't mean much in an election year.

[Meathead]

issues?!? intelligence?!? competence?!?

who cares about that crap

here is the criteria priority for selecting a us president:

1. nice smile
2. charming
3. catchy phrases
4. promise me money
5. dont make me think

[Gibby]

issues?!? intelligence?!? competence?!?

who cares about that crap

here is the criteria priority for selecting a us president:

1. nice smile
2. charming
3. catchy phrases
4. promise me money
5. dont make me think

sad but true.