If the media is non-profit, would it improve news coverage? (1 Viewer)

[Francis Collins]

This "new" member is now banned from the forum, because he/she used an alias, but had already been removed from here before.

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Which would mean then in some way the government sticking their nose in news gathering. No thank you.

I have no problem with the way news is reported. There are so many different ways of getting news it is maddening. Turn on cable and there are 4 or more newtorks of 24 hours of news, 2 channels of financial reporting, 2 C-Spans and countless resources on the internet. If capitalism didn't drive news, we would still be stuck with 5, 6 and 10pm newscasts.

I enjoy the many outlets to get information, and with so many different points of view, it keeps the industry somewhat honest, not totally honest, but honest.

Paul

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

On the bias question: Nonsense. PBS and NPR are two of the most outrageously biased news outlets in America and both are non-profits, funded in part by taxpayers. Nor does the assumption that the profit motive feeds bias explain the opposite biases many people see, for instance, by The Washington Post and The Washington Times, or CNN and Fox. (I'm talking about in the news coverage, not in what are clearly opinion or editorial pieces and shows.)

On the sensationalism question: It isn't the profit motive that is the problem, at least not directly. It is ratings, which control profits. And the problem there isn't the news outlets, it is us. If we didn't tune in in record numbers for car chases, and "All Michael Jackson, All the Time" coverage, the news channels wouldn't offer that coverage. If a non-profit news outfit ignored those same stories people likely wouldn't watch it - which would cause problems come pledge week for the channels that carried them. So non-profits are not immune (however much they might claim) to market pressures.

All in all I think we're in much better shape with a half-dozen 24 hour cable news channels of various stripes, on-line access to newspapers from around the country and the world and opinion blogs and independent "researchers" we can weigh against one another.

I don't watch all the Jackson/Kobe/Scott Peterson coverage and I manage to get all the information I need both from the channels that do cover those things and from other outlets that don't.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Shawn C]

I can't stand how EVERYTHING is BREAKING NEWS these days.

BREAKING NEWS: There is an accident report at the intersection of blah blah blah...

BREAKING NEWS: Rain in the forecast!

BREAKING NEWS: Michael Jackson in car!

 

[MikeSerrano]

No news is good news.

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

-Mike

 

[wally]

I can't stand how EVERYTHING is BREAKING NEWS these days.

Particularly after the “Breaking News” has “Broken”. About a month ago we had a Lear Jet go down shortly after take-off (everyone “walked” away with the pilot suffering a back injury). Anyway they first reported it about 6:30 am with helicopter coverage of the burning wreckage in a field. They cut away from regular programming about every 10 minutes for 3 hours basically to report that nothing had changed, well at some point the fire was extinguished. So they ended up spending a bunch of time, and $, reporting a story that was over before it aired. That’s why I avoid TV news, local and network, whenever possible.

 

[Seth--L]

Bias or not, viewers/listeners of NPR and PBS news programs are far and away the most informed Americans when it comes to the actually facts of news stories.

The problem with for-profit TV news is that there are commercials every 4 minutes. No level of depth is able to be achieved and everything is reduced to a sound bite in order to squeeze as many headline as possible between commercials. NPR on the other hand is takes as long as needed to properly give a news report without interruption. For this reason newspapers are also typically superior to TV news, but aren't as dynamic as something like NPR's "All Things Considered."

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Bias or not, viewers/listeners of NPR and PBS news programs are far and away the most informed Americans when it comes to the actual facts of news stories.

You can't say "bias or not" and then go on to extol them for being factual. If there's bias, the facts are being filtered or twisted, perhaps some omitted, so the question of "bias or not" becomes surpremely important.

"the most informed Americans when it comes to the actaul facts of news stories?"

Not hardly. They're well-informed about selected facts (always from a single viewpoint) in the stories that NPR and PBS choose to cover. (Usually those that make the front page of The New York Times.) Any other stories and any other points of view are not deemed "news". In political debates I am constantly shocked at the sheer factual ignorance of people who get their news mostly or exclusively from NPR. And they're good little NPR fans, too, because they think if it wasn't covered by NPR, it really can't be news - or even be true.


If you want a half-decent chance of getting at the facts with the spin filtered out (because the relative spin of the different players tend to cancel each other out) try the two newspapers and two networks I mentioned in my earlier post. Through in The Wall Street Journal, which is far more objective in its news columns than The New York Times or The Washington Post could ever hope to be, for some interesting editorial takes.

Don't forget, we tend to think our own positions moderate and objective, and don't think we're at all biased. So when we find a news source that shares our bias and prejudice, we tend to think it wonderfully objective. If that's our only news source, we're listening to an echo chamber, are not getting to hear truths we might find uncomfortable and are not going to hear any contrary opinions. And we can't come to understand contrary opinionis if we never hear them. (Nor can we ever be persuaded to change our own opinions if we never hear any others. And if our opinions turn out to be wrong, shouldn't we want to change them?)

Regards,

Joe

 

[CharlesD]

Joeseph DeMartino, your posts about what you perceive to be "bias" in the most respected media outlets in the US are mere political opinion and frankly I am surprised they are allowed on HTF which, as I would have thought you would know, has a policy against political discussion.

Here is an interesting study on primary news source vs. basic knowledge about the situation in Iraq. Because of HTF policy I won't even mention the basic conclusions, but it is an interesting read.

 

[Joseph S]

It's funny that people actually get their news from the same "experts" that grew out of the OJ saga. Do those that watch these stations still believe what they preach? Do you really believe they have fact based stances on any issue of substance? They're too busy self promoting, they have no time to read up on or participate in the "news" that they claim to be experts on. Instead you get a bunch of fluff with zero substance. Yeah, you may have 4 24 hr stations, but they're all covering the same worthless stories for month plus blocks.

I've pretty much given up on radio and tv news, you have the same folks preaching "rules are rules/laws are laws" and then the next hour complaining that a boy scout/choir boy/church going scholar got suspended for bringing an axe to school.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Seth, your '4 minute' rule for commercials is all too correct, but it is funny how they will skip commercials completely when real news comes up (like 9/11). They have no commercials for hours or even days.

I can see their accountants screeming bloody murder - "Will someone please put a commercial on?"

As for the news being biased - I think it all is, and as stated above, we will accept what we want to believe, but again (like said before) all of the news stations play the same crap over and over. I feel like they all call somebody up every morning and ask, "Ok, what will we put on the news today?"

I am really tired of the candidates and their news for an election coming up in another 11 months! If I could get a station to do any one thing it would be to start the political coverage next September. Ok, maybe June, but that's my final offer.

Glenn

 

[Don Black]

The media is full of politics regardless of whether it's for profit or a 501c3. There are always financial undercurrents concerning ownership caps, M/A activity, PSAs, and generaly lobbying. The head of Fox News stumps endlessly for the RNC/Bush. Ted Turner is a big liberal. The BBC and Blair administration are continuously at odds (again with a great deal of influence being exerted by Murdoch/Fox). I don't think you can ever separate the two.

What I don't like to see is one-sided political bias. I'm fine that Fox and CNN go up against each other: conservative vs. liberal. I think it was wrong for Bush to exclude CNN from his jaunt to Iraq though and give an exclusive to Fox. Of course this kind of stuff goes on all of the time in deciding who gets what interview.

I still think it's wrong though regardless of one's political position.

 

[John Watson]

"I read the news today, oh boy
the English (American, Chinese) army had just won the war..."

"Off with their Talking Heads!"

McLuhan was the best media prophet

 

[Cees Alons]

The moderatoring staff is closely monitoring this thread. Please make sure it won't wander into the political realm.
Thanks.

The original poster is removed from the forum, for the reasons given inside the first post.