Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-19-2019, 08:15 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,151

How did the national news broadcasts turn into such crap?


Other than PBS News Hour, that is. I like Lester's delivery, but after 15 minutes of barely scratching important stories, the rest of the broadcast is all visual clickbait. "Big crash in Wisconsin! Wait till you see what happened next!" Wisconsin? That's a local story at best, so who the fuck cares? Then we have that guy (Yamas?) who sits with his hands on the desk, arms akimbo, like he's going to launch himself over the thing at any moment. And NBC really should stop trotting out that fucking Al Roker with his blue glasses to give us his 30 second 40 MILLION PEOPLE IN HARM'S WAY! bullshit.

And the outrage. Oh my, the outrage I'm supposed to feel at every one-sided story about someone who was roughed up by a cop.

Oh yay! Another soldier comes home and surprises his kid in school. Yawn.

I'm done with it. I don't remember when this crap started. I guess it's gradually been getting worse as the networks have had to compete for viewership from an audience with an ever-decreasing attention span.
  #2  
Old 06-19-2019, 08:27 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
I guess it's gradually been getting worse as the networks have had to compete for viewership from an audience with an ever-decreasing attention span.
Yep. The network evening news shows have been losing viewers for decades now because younger viewers simply don't want to sit in front of their TV and watch 30 minutes of continuous news. They've tried many different ways of attracting new viewers and/or hanging on to their regular viewers. They've gone serious, gone light, done fewer but more in-depth stories, more but shorter stories, changed anchors, changed producers, changed sets, and changed presentations. None of it has resulted in a permanent stanch of their loss of viewers.

NBC is giving you half a show of decent if shallow news, one-third of clickbait, and something to make you feel better at the end. Be thankful those ratios are the way they are.
  #3  
Old 06-19-2019, 10:30 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,203
What happened? Walter Cronkite retired and Edward R Murrow died.
  #4  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:18 PM
Carryon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 744
Consolidation of media for one. Even our local news is basically the same stories just in different order. There is little investigative journalism for one. People are less reliant and politicians are more savvy, any attempt to show any company or politician in a bad light can bring reprisals from a media blackout to advertising ban.
  #5  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:28 PM
hajario's Avatar
hajario is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 16,064
I’m 55 and it’s been utter shit for my entire adult life. The song Dirty Laundry came out in 1982. Why does this strike you as something new?

Last edited by hajario; 06-19-2019 at 11:28 PM.
  #6  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:53 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,172
Watergate came to a head in 1974. At that time, network news seemed (to me) to be driven by the need to inform the public first, and profits second. I think this changed by the early 80's, I'm not sure why. I want to think it had something to do with Reagan and all the BS that he dripped down the willing gullet of the American people, but that's probably just prejudice on my part.

Anyway, blame the public, they get what they want. When they wanted information, that's what they got. Now they're happy with fluff, because real life is hard, and the world is ugly.
  #7  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:53 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,974
I think a big problem is the 24 hour news cycle. Once you spend a few minutes on the important stuff (whatever that may mean to you), you have to fill in with fluff until something else happens.

Someone (Trevor Noah, maybe) was just talking about this. The example he used was from a week or two ago. There was an announcement that Mueller would be doing a press conference in an hour and every news station spent the next hour speculating on what it was going to be. That is, they filled 60+ minutes guessing at what he would be discussing when they could have been talking about other things since whatever he would be discussing was going to be discussed in an hour and they could have just waited and presented it then.

The problem, as I see it, is that if they went on to other things, people are going to flip to another station where the hosts are talking about it, even if they're just guessing. Because of that, everyone has to talk about it.

It's similar to elections, especially the final few hours. More people are going to watch the news stations that are sitting there guessing who's going to win than the one that says 'we'll let you know as soon as we know, in the mean time, here's some local/important/other news'.

TLDR: 24 hour news cycle
Also, here's the Trevor Noah bit, skip to about a minute in.
  #8  
Old 06-19-2019, 11:58 PM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Anyway, blame the public, they get what they want. When they wanted information, that's what they got. Now they're happy with fluff, because real life is hard, and the world is ugly.
To a certain extent, 'blame the public' tends to be the right answer. So long as people watch that station, buy that product, do that thing, businesses will continue to provide it. Why wouldn't they, it would be silly not to.

I say 'to a certain extent' because sometimes you end up in a vicious cycle where the public consumes a certain product/content so more and more of it is produced, but the only reason they consume so much of it is because it's the only option.
It's what happens when big businesses decide what they think the average consumer wants.
  #9  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:41 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,853
Have never been really happy with it, but long ago stopped watching it completely. The anecdote will tell when this was.

Peter Jennings lead off the ABC Nightly News with a story about a poll that said the overwhelming majority of Americans thought the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was no big deal and wished people would leave it alone. He then spent the next 20 minutes on the Clinton-Lewinsky thing.

That ... was ... it.

Had already given up on the local "news" before that. Zero actual news content most of the time. Lots of crash, fires, etc. The worst are the "live on the scene" reports from where an accident happened ... 8 hours ago or even the previous day. There's nothing going on there now at all! So why is there is live field report????
  #10  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:46 AM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 35,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Watergate came to a head in 1974. At that time, network news seemed (to me) to be driven by the need to inform the public first, and profits second. I think this changed by the early 80's, I'm not sure why.
Until then the networks and local stations offered news at a loss as a public service. The FCC stopped enforcing strict public service standards on licensees and the networks and station owners realized news (and children's programming) could become a huge profit center.
__________________
*I'm experimenting with E, em, and es and emself as pronouns that do not indicate any specific gender nor exclude any specific gender.
  #11  
Old 06-20-2019, 06:57 AM
Joey P is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 28,974
[QUOTE=ftg;21707289]Have never been really happy with it, but long ago stopped watching it completely. The anecdote will tell when this was.

Peter Jennings lead off the ABC Nightly News with a story about a poll that said the overwhelming majority of Americans thought the Clinton-Lewinsky thing was no big deal and wished people would leave it alone. He then spent the next 20 minutes on the Clinton-Lewinsky thing.

That ... was ... it.[quote]
I think it's more like X% of Americans are just saying they with the news would stop reporting on it. But as i mentioned upthread. If ABC decides not to report on, or limit reports on, a given topic, but NBC covers it like an imminent threat, people are going to watch NBC.
Look at how many people don't care about celebrity gossip, but are glued to TMZ or say things like 'I don't care/don't talk about politics, but did you hear about [politician doing something I don't agree with] yesterday"

Quote:
Had already given up on the local "news" before that. Zero actual news content most of the time. Lots of crash, fires, etc. The worst are the "live on the scene" reports from where an accident happened ... 8 hours ago or even the previous day. There's nothing going on there now at all! So why is there is live field report????
That, I agree with. The majority of the time, I can't even see a good reason for it.

A while back one of the news stations would send a crew out on the road, to film, from inside the van, the horrible driving conditions, usually during the middle of a really bad snowstorm. So, here's the news crew doing their usual 'it's really bad out, if you don't have to leave the house, please don't', while they put one more vehicle on the road. And not just any vehicle, one that's going to turn heads due to it being a news van with someone we recognize sitting in it.

Reporting on minor accidents never made sense either. Someone upthread made a comment about an accident in Wisconsin. Yeah, that one was really, really bad, but why does someone a thousand miles away care, or even need to know? I've seen that here as well. I'm in Milwaukee, I'm not all that interested in a headline that reads "two injured in wrong way driver accident during rush hour in St Louis". I don't know who pays whom when news is picked up from 'the wire', but I assume that has something to do with it. Perhaps news stations put everything out there in hopes that a few other stations will pick it up and they'll have a little extra income.
  #12  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:24 AM
rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,467
And don't forget that by the time evening news comes on, we already know about all the significant and many non-significant events of the day. Why spend 30 minutes hearing about the notification that came in at 11AM that morning?

In my opinion, the only hope for news is in-depth investigative reporting. The problem there is that there isn't enough dirt available to go around. The NY Times does pretty well though. They report all the news they can and fill the rest of the paper up with articles about places and people unfamiliar to their readers. But that is expensive, usually requiring a reporter to travel. Yes, actually get up out of their seat and move away from Google. I know, it's crazy, but they make it work.
  #13  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:35 AM
mcgato is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Hoboken
Posts: 1,353
The 1976 movie "Network" explains this pretty well.
  #14  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:36 AM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,487
Agree with the comments so far. Especially regarding the 24-hour news cycle, and the formulaic nature of all the national news (except PBS News hour, as mentioned in the OP).

The Weather Channel is responsible for weather hysteria, with their naming of winter storms, headlines about millions of people being in "danger" from a rain storm, and placing their anchors outside in hurricanes. All total unnecessary BS meant to drum-up viewers or clicks. And, as already mentioned, once one network ups the game, everyone else has to respond - that is why Al Roker parrots stupid headlines about people in "danger" and "at risk" of getting rained on. It's just weather. When a hurricane approaches, or there is a major flood, that's national news, but a cold front sweeping thru the midwest and it being hot in Phoenix is not.
  #15  
Old 06-20-2019, 08:51 AM
divemaster's Avatar
divemaster is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Gainesville, VA
Posts: 3,558
Everything is "breaking news." Used to be, breaking news was those few occasions that a news announcement "broke into" your "regularly scheduled programming." Assassinations, shuttle explosions, moon landings, etc. Now EVERYTHING is "breaking."

This just in! Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!.. (goes the crawl at the bottom of the screen): "Warren to speak at Podunk, KY Grange Hall at noon!"
  #16  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:16 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
What happened? Walter Cronkite retired and Edward R Murrow died.
Yeah, that was my first reaction as well. But the 24-hour news cycle really drove the stake through the heart of proper news reporting. When all the big stories have already been reported on and dissected during the day, the news shows have to fill with entertainment and fluff instead.

I find it ironic that comedians have ended up becoming the most trusted news sources. Last Week Tonight is pretty much the best source for substantive analysis of current issues at the moment, if you don't mind Oliver's bizarre and obscene asides.
  #17  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:19 AM
Turble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 2,284
I remember the days when there were three TV channels. The news had fifteen minutes of local news and fifteen minutes of national news – they included sports and weather – and on a slow news day they put in a fluff human interest story when there just wasn’t much of anything important or interesting going on.

I think the amount of news remains about the same as it was in those days – the rest is junk which would be best avoided.

Last edited by Turble; 06-20-2019 at 09:20 AM.
  #18  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:21 AM
Hampshire is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 11,042
The way they just chase a small one day story and then beat it into the ground over a period of a week trying to cover ever single related incident no matter how minuscule just kills me.
A few tourists die in the Dominican so they immediately send a reporter to be stationed there and report any time an American tourist gets so much as a belly ache after dinner.

And now apparently it's become newsworthy to run stories about comments people make about other news stories.
"Breaking news! Guess what Whoopie said on The View about yesterday's news!"
  #19  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:46 AM
GESancMan's Avatar
GESancMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Portland
Posts: 3,327
It's been years since I've watched any of these news shows, local or national. What I remember driving me crazy, on top of this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by ftg View Post
Had already given up on the local "news" before that. Zero actual news content most of the time. Lots of crash, fires, etc. The worst are the "live on the scene" reports from where an accident happened ... 8 hours ago or even the previous day. There's nothing going on there now at all! So why is there is live field report????
... is that every goddamn piece had the part where the anchor or reporter says "we now take you to some random idiot we found on the street, who is going to say something totally obvious, adding nothing to this story."

Cut this bullshit out, and fit twice as many stories into the newscast! When I realized it was actually making me angry, I decided it was time to stop watching.
  #20  
Old 06-20-2019, 09:56 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by hajario View Post
I’m 55 and it’s been utter shit for my entire adult life. The song Dirty Laundry came out in 1982. Why does this strike you as something new?
Perhaps my frustration level has dropped. Watching the news each night just became habit, but more and more of late it's become an irritation, and I've been turning it off after fifteen minutes. But even the fifteen minutes is just headlines with little or no depth, interspersed with drug ads.

Our local NBC affiliate does a pretty good job with local news and cover quite a bit of ground over the hour and a half they broadcast.

The best is the PBS News Hour, which I wish would air about two hours earlier.
  #21  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:21 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,178
My wife likes to watch the ABC Evening News. That program makes me crazy, for many of the reasons already noted -- its structure is very similar to the structure of the NBC news that Chefguy described (complete with, every night, a breathless description of whatever bad weather is going on somewhere in the U.S., "xx million Americans at risk!")

One other particularly annoying feature of the ABC newscast: they run commercial-free for the first 10 to 12 minutes of the show. But, then, for the rest of the newscast, it's 3 minutes of commercials, then 90 seconds of news, then another 3 minutes of commercials, etc. And, Peter Muir will tease the same news story going into two or three of those commercial breaks, clearly in hopes that viewers will stay tuned through all of those ads for cancer drugs and OTC dietary supplements.
  #22  
Old 06-20-2019, 11:33 AM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgato View Post
The 1976 movie "Network" explains this pretty well.
In 1976 Network was obviously over the top satire.

In 2019 it's a documentary.


“This was the story of Howard Beale: The first known instance of a man who was killed because he had lousy ratings” In 2019 it wouldn't surprise me.

I'm mad as hell and I''m not going to take....hey, a new story about Princess Di!
  #23  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:14 PM
WildaBeast's Avatar
WildaBeast is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 527
I noticed this way back in the early 2000s. Remember the Washington, DC area "sniper" shootings that had everyone in that area in a panic for a couple of weeks? On the day he was arrested I was driving home from somewhere and had NPR on the radio. The NPR reporters simply stated matter of factly "An arrest has been made in relation to the Washington, DC area sniper shootings." Then I got home and turned on the TV, probably to the CBS evening news. Their version of the story was a much more sensational "OMG they caught the sniper!" style of reporting. That was the point when NPR became my preferred source for news.
  #24  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:50 PM
Roderick Femm's Avatar
Roderick Femm is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: On the cusp, also in SF
Posts: 7,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Until then the networks and local stations offered news at a loss as a public service. The FCC stopped enforcing strict public service standards on licensees and the networks and station owners realized news (and children's programming) could become a huge profit center.
Just curious when that happened. This is probably the biggest part of the answer.
  #25  
Old 06-20-2019, 12:58 PM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 19,853
An important note about Watergate: The actual break-in and such was not considered news of major consequence by the majority of news outlets. Hardly any reporters were on it. Woodward and Bernstein were competing with a couple guys at the NYT and that was nearly it. And this went on during an election so Nixon sailed thru and won by an immense margin.

CBS (Hello, Walter!), ABC, NBC knew perfectly well what the deal on the break-in was and a lot of other dirt about Nixon. But they didn't want to ruin their "relationships" with top government people by reporting it. So they kept a lid on it. Deliberately.

It was only when too many horror stories about what was going on with CREEP and a special prosecutor was named that they paid even token attention to it.

It took the Watergate hearings getting up to speed to get people's attention. And that required people on both sides of the aisle wanting to get to the truth.

Ditto a lot of bad stuff going on in Vietnam from the early 60s on was deliberately buried. It took Cronkite until 1968 to say on the air that the war was leading to a stalemate, and that was even after the Wall Street Journal had declared “everyone had better be prepared for the bitter taste of defeat beyond America's power to prevent.”

The big TV news outfits were far from saints back then.
  #26  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:11 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,442
Quote:
Originally Posted by Just Asking Questions View Post
What happened? Walter Cronkite retired and Edward R Murrow died.
I hate to break it to you, Cronkite is dead too.
  #27  
Old 06-20-2019, 01:25 PM
pullin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: N Texas
Posts: 3,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildaBeast View Post
I noticed this way back in the early 2000s. Remember the Washington, DC area "sniper" shootings that had everyone in that area in a panic for a couple of weeks? On the day he was arrested I was driving home from somewhere and had NPR on the radio. The NPR reporters simply stated matter of factly "An arrest has been made in relation to the Washington, DC area sniper shootings." Then I got home and turned on the TV, probably to the CBS evening news. Their version of the story was a much more sensational "OMG they caught the sniper!" style of reporting. That was the point when NPR became my preferred source for news.

Cold front with storms moves thru the Midwest -- like it has every week of every summer throughout recorded history.

1985 - "A cold front is moving from the Rockies, Oklahoma and Texas may see thunderstorms this week."

2015 - "28 MILLION PEOPLE AT RISK FROM FAST MOVING KILLER STORMS!!! TAKE SHELTER NOW!!!"

Same story, 30 years apart.

I peruse the web (and SDMB) for important stories, and get weather from my NOAA weather radio.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
I'm done with it.
Welcome to our little club. You'll find it much more relaxing here.
  #28  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:30 PM
Just Asking Questions is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 7,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by loach View Post
i hate to break it to you, cronkite is dead too.
nooooooooooo!
  #29  
Old 06-20-2019, 02:37 PM
Mundane Super Hero is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 122
They. Didn't.


The people chose to believe internet lies over easily provable facts from books... because some paid online-troll made them seem believable.


Those people never once noticed the spelling mistakes in the translations from English to Russian or back again.
  #30  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:33 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,396
Several reasons, I think. One is corporations' pure focus on profits. PBS/NPR offers the best news in the U.S. because it is non-profit.

Top newspapers like the Post and Times have been profit-making for many years, but they tended to be closely held. Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, publisher of the N.Y. Times, was the son and grandson of N.Y. Times publishers. That grandfather's father-in-law was Adolph Simon Ochs who was ... N.Y. Times publisher!

In another thread I mentioned that hereditary Monarchs have senses of honor and duty. Some of the great publishers did too. But they've been forced to compromise in our post-rational capitalist society.

I'd previously noted the line of ownership of the N.Y. Times, but clicked on Wikipedia to double-check:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiki: The_New_York_Times_Company#History
The company was founded by Henry Jarvis Raymond and George Jones in New York City. The first edition of the newspaper The New York Times, published on September 18, 1851, stated: "We publish today the first issue of the New-York Daily Times, and we intend to issue it every morning (Sundays excepted) for an indefinite number of years to come."[8]

The company moved into the cable channel industry purchasing a 40% interest in the Popcorn Channel, a theatrical movie preview and local movie times, in November 1994.
One short paragraph about 1851 and the history article flashes straight to 1994! Off-topic? Not entirely: Post-rational America is so wrapped up in its degraded present-day persona, that the olden days are willfully forgotten. If this were a kiddies' board, they'd be asking "Who was Walter Cronkite, Grandpa?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acsenray View Post
Until then the networks and local stations offered news at a loss as a public service. The FCC stopped enforcing strict public service standards on licensees and the networks and station owners realized news (and children's programming) could become a huge profit center.
Could the FCC even dare to treat "public service" as a criterion with today's demented political and judicial climate?
  #31  
Old 06-20-2019, 03:54 PM
Dallas Jones is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Orygun forest
Posts: 4,891
Even the Science news, which should be fairly factual, is now mostly clickbait.

What they say: "Don't miss tonight's Blue Moon, Strawberry Moon, Blood Moon, Harvest Moon, Black Moon, Super Moon..."

What is means: There will be a full moon tonight, like there is every 28 days or so. I swear that there are now officially more types of full moons than there are full moons in a year.

And just last week:

"Tonight Jupiter will be so close that you can see its moons with a pair of binoculars!"

Yeah, like you can almost every night if you have binoculars.

It began with CNN about the beginning of the first Gulf War and the need to feed the 24 hour news cycle. Now it is just get it up fast and check on the facts later, but get it up fast!
  #32  
Old 06-20-2019, 05:02 PM
phreesh is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,734
I have access to well-produced, thoughtful, up-to-the minute reporting on my phone whenever I want. I don't have to sit in a specific place. I don't need to tune in at a specific time, I don't have to watch a large number of commercials and I don't have to listen to someone I don't enjoy. And I can easily get different perspectives on an event if I so choose.

The nightly news lost to the internet.
__________________
Not the dumbest knife in the drawer
  #33  
Old 06-20-2019, 05:22 PM
seal_cleaner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Northwest Arkansas
Posts: 2,161
I’ve probably posted this before.
My dad worked in management at CBS under Bill Paley. News was not supposed to be a profit center. He considered it a public service financed by the entertainment division. ABC in New York was the first “happy talk” news broadcast ( maybe the first use of the happy face icon) and their ratings soared. That’s was the beginning of infotainment.
  #34  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:13 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roderick Femm View Post
Just curious when that happened. This is probably the biggest part of the answer.
Deregulation of broadcast TV and radio, including minimum requirements for news programming, took place over roughly 1983-86. It's usually thought of as strictly a Reaganish philosophy, but there were a fair number of liberals who favored it because they thought it would lead to more robust coverage of more different viewpoints (which it actually did with talk radio, although conservative voices have tended to dominate over liberals.)
  #35  
Old 06-20-2019, 10:27 PM
nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 12,839
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
Other than PBS News Hour, that is. I like Lester's delivery, but after 15 minutes of barely scratching important stories, the rest of the broadcast is all visual clickbait.

(snipped)

Oh yay! Another soldier comes home and surprises his kid in school. Yawn.

I'm done with it. I don't remember when this crap started. I guess it's gradually been getting worse as the networks have had to compete for viewership from an audience with an ever-decreasing attention span.
IIRC, the network news was just 15 minutes when it debuted.

Don't forget about yet another autistic child whose parents plan a day-long shindig for their birthday and nobody shows up, so the police and fire departments save the day.
  #36  
Old 06-22-2019, 10:05 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,342
There's a battle going on for the heart and soul of NPR news. It seems that older listeners prefer the traditional narrative style of news, while younger listeners seem to lean toward a more first-person blog/podcast delivery. Same amount of information, but vastly different styles.

I haven't heard anything about PBS considering any changes to their News Hour format, but don't forget, that has gradually evolved since the days of MacNeil-Leher.
  #37  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:14 AM
phxjcc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Noydb, CO
Posts: 442
Here is our reporter at the scene Heather McAirhead...
Heather. "Hello, Bob, I am here with Springfield resident Susie Snigglefritz, tell me Susie: How do you, feel about kitties dying?"
Susie (sobbing): "Its horrible, just horrible"
Heather: "As you can see, Bob, people are upset about kitties dying. Back to you Bob."

Dear media, I know how to feel.
Just tell me the f@&$&@$&@ facts and stop trying to tell me how to feel.

Larraigne (sp?) Newman on the original SNL was the perfect parody of the onsite reporter nonsense.
  #38  
Old 06-23-2019, 09:37 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
And don't forget that by the time evening news comes on, we already know about all the significant and many non-significant events of the day. Why spend 30 minutes hearing about the notification that came in at 11AM that morning?

In my opinion, the only hope for news is in-depth investigative reporting. The problem there is that there isn't enough dirt available to go around. The NY Times does pretty well though. They report all the news they can and fill the rest of the paper up with articles about places and people unfamiliar to their readers. But that is expensive, usually requiring a reporter to travel. Yes, actually get up out of their seat and move away from Google. I know, it's crazy, but they make it work.
I agree with this far more so than any sort of corruption by news agencies. I'm not that old at all and remember prior to the internet, you would sit down at 6:00 p.m. to see what was going on in the nation/world that day because if it happened after the newspaper was published last night, you wouldn't hear about it, unless it was something major that broke.

Today, I can read any news story I want sitting on the crapper at work, and I certainly don't have to be home at a particular time if I decide to browse the news. It is a 1950s model that is trying to stay relevant in 2019. I think it is failing and doomed to fail, but if you have a multimillion dollar industry, are you just going to throw in the towel or give it a shot?
  #39  
Old 06-23-2019, 11:21 PM
Der Trihs's Avatar
Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 38,818
Like pretty much everything else in our society it's become one dimensionally about profit, and doing a good job costs money. Hiring an ignorant talking head who spouts corporate PR department releases word-for-word is cheaper than hiring experts and investigative reporters, so the talking head gets favored.

There's no pride in workmanship or sense of social duty anymore, only the one dimensional desire for profit at any cost. Therefore the news has decayed into garbage.
  #40  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:45 AM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,151
I'll also vent about the reporters standing in water/snow/mud/blood/lava/forest fires/body parts to report on disasters/tragedies/weather. They've even gone from just standing near the water, to wearing muck boots, then hip boots, then body waders. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a reporter's snorkel sticking up out of the water. It's a cliche, folks. Just stop it.
  #41  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:44 AM
kenobi 65's Avatar
kenobi 65 is online now
Corellian Nerfherder
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brookfield, IL
Posts: 15,178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chefguy View Post
I'll also vent about the reporters standing in water/snow/mud/blood/lava/forest fires/body parts to report on disasters/tragedies/weather. They've even gone from just standing near the water, to wearing muck boots, then hip boots, then body waders. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a reporter's snorkel sticking up out of the water. It's a cliche, folks. Just stop it.
I absolutely blame The Weather Channel for that crap, starting with sending Jim Cantore and Mike Seidel out into hurricanes.
  #42  
Old 06-24-2019, 10:49 AM
Muffin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Great White North
Posts: 20,572
Pull the plug on the TV, and select your news from the internet. That way you get to quickly visit a range of news providers, and drill down when you prefer.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return.
  #43  
Old 06-24-2019, 11:19 AM
CelticKnot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: BackHome again in Indiana
Posts: 1,031
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Pull the plug on the TV, and select your news from the internet. That way you get to quickly visit a range of news providers, and drill down when you prefer.
Some people seem to think that Walter Cronkite was a purely objective reporter and not one who believed it was his job to direct the opinions of Americans. See Tet Offensive.

Internet. News aggregation websites pull from many different sources so different views can be weighed. I don't watch TV news except for national elections, and even then I have my laptop.
The last time I depended on TV news was Sept 12, 2001. When I woke up in the morning after a very normal day, the world had changed. The only live TV we had was CNN International, and I listened for at least 5 minutes before I muted the talking heads and called my father in the states to find out what was going on. No one on TV said one word about hijacked airplanes as they went on and on and on...
  #44  
Old 06-24-2019, 07:58 PM
dorvann is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 736
I think a major point where the TV news started to value ratings and profit over actual news was during the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. It boosted the ratings of the cable news channels and they went looking for other lurid crime cases to cover when it was over. The murders of Jon-Benet Ramsey and Chandra Levy among others. I've always wondered why the news seems to cover one crime over another. One factor seems to be if there is an attractive white female(either as a victim or perpetrator) they can frame the story around.
  #45  
Old 06-24-2019, 08:21 PM
Chefguy's Avatar
Chefguy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 42,151
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
Pull the plug on the TV, and select your news from the internet. That way you get to quickly visit a range of news providers, and drill down when you prefer.
Actually I do. My wife has been the TV news junkie, although she's on board with killing it after the first 15 minutes. She also does a shit ton of online news reading, far more than I do.
  #46  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,782
Here is an excellent example:

https://www.wdtv.com/content/news/St...511665042.html

The title says that there is a "debate" concerning the removal of the Stonewall Jackson statue at the Harrison County, WV courthouse.

The article states that the first two people they interviewed supported keeping the statue, but they then "caught up" with a guy that said that if it offends people it shouldn't be there.

It concludes by saying that the commissioners could not be reached for comment and that there had been no "calls' for removing it!

So the article is a big nothingburger. There is no debate, no proposal to remove the statue. Why was this article even written? What shitty journalism.

ETA: And a video along with it exposing this on the edge of your seat story!

Last edited by UltraVires; 06-24-2019 at 09:06 PM.
  #47  
Old 06-24-2019, 09:29 PM
snowthx's Avatar
snowthx is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Sacratomato area
Posts: 3,487
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
I think a major point where the TV news started to value ratings and profit over actual news was during the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. It boosted the ratings of the cable news channels and they went looking for other lurid crime cases to cover when it was over. The murders of Jon-Benet Ramsey and Chandra Levy among others. I've always wondered why the news seems to cover one crime over another. One factor seems to be if there is an attractive white female(either as a victim or perpetrator) they can frame the story around.
Missing White Woman Syndrome:

Missing white woman syndrome is a phenomenon noted by social scientists and media commentators of the extensive media coverage, especially in television, of missing person cases involving young, white, upper-middle-class women or girls. The phenomenon is defined as the Western media's undue focus on upper-middle-class white women who disappear, with the disproportionate degree of coverage they receive being compared to cases of missing women of color, women of lower social classes and missing men or boys.
  #48  
Old 06-25-2019, 02:56 AM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Everything is "breaking news." Used to be, breaking news was those few occasions that a news announcement "broke into" your "regularly scheduled programming." Assassinations, shuttle explosions, moon landings, etc. Now EVERYTHING is "breaking."

This just in! Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!.. (goes the crawl at the bottom of the screen): "Warren to speak at Podunk, KY Grange Hall at noon!"
I gave up with Breaking News when my local ABC newscast literally gives me a BREAKING NEWS graphic whenever Trump has a tweet.

Similarly CNN is on a quest every single day to find a new Trump voter who has mixed opinions on voting for Trump.
  #49  
Old 06-25-2019, 03:46 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 6,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemaster View Post
Everything is "breaking news." Used to be, breaking news was those few occasions that a news announcement "broke into" your "regularly scheduled programming." Assassinations, shuttle explosions, moon landings, etc. Now EVERYTHING is "breaking."

This just in! Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!...Breaking!.. (goes the crawl at the bottom of the screen): "Warren to speak at Podunk, KY Grange Hall at noon!"
And then it stays "breaking" for hours and hours afterward, even after it's well and truly broken.

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 06-25-2019 at 03:50 AM.
  #50  
Old 06-25-2019, 04:34 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,511
Quote:
Originally Posted by dorvann View Post
I think a major point where the TV news started to value ratings and profit over actual news was during the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial. It boosted the ratings of the cable news channels and they went looking for other lurid crime cases to cover when it was over.
I think it goes back to Gulf War I - CNN's 24-hour coverage of Wolf Blitzer standing around in the desert in front of military equipment talking about SCUDs was a gamechanger for news channels. Unfortunately even the excitement of war pales after a while and so they have to find something else to titillate their viewers, even if it doesn't actually inform them.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017