The Times today re-ran and OP-ED piece by Cronkite.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/18opclassic.html
I liked this part.
And this part is very important.
bolding mine.
Todays newscasters slip between editorial opinion and facts all too easily. The idea of expressing an opinion about the news was something he did rarely, and when he did he made sure everyone knew it was his opinion and not ‘news’.
I too would love the TV news to be just that- hard news, nothing else. No celebrity gossip, no “Talking heads” discussing new agey Soccer Mum friendly bullshit (Petrol prices have gone up 2c/litre, which means random people predict grocery prices to rise by eleventy thousand percent and YOUR CHILDREN WON’T BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR MORNING WEETBIX! if you buy it by the container-load), and- I know this is going to be unpopular- no in-depth Sports news, either. Just the acknowledgement that a match was played, and the final score, and any major non-points-scoring events thereof (Star players injured, all-in brawl at half-time, etc).
The problem the “traditional” media has at the moment is that it’s wildly flailing around trying to work out where it fits in the New Order. And right now, they’re losing to the internet. Gordon Brown gives The Finger to one of his political opponents and before he’s wound the window up on the Ministerial Jaguar, Mongolian Yak Herders have got footage of the incident beamed to their iPhones and the pundits are already blogging about what it could mean vis a vis the integration of San Marino into the European Union.
So, TV has to go with something different- and that, at the moment, is treating their in-house goings on (ie, which MasterChef contestants are sleeping with each other), Celebrity Gossip, Sensationalism, and Talking Heads Aimed At A Specific Demographic (so they can sell airtime to advertisers) as “News”.
And, of course, because the Internet (and thus news in general) moves so quickly, there’s a great erosion in Fact Checking- a good example of this were some relatively recent alleged nude photos of a well-known politician which later turned out to be a rather obvious hoax. Spending even five minutes with Google would have put some serious holes into the story (for example, the building the photos were allegedly taken in not actually being built until some years after the supposed date on the photos), and no-one even bothered to contact the politician involved- the newspaper that ran the photos basically said “OMG! SCOOP!” and put the pics on the front page of the next day’s paper, and it was only in the days afterwards that the story collapsed like a deckchair in a thunderstorm and the fallout began- after a prominent politician had been defamed in the national press.
Time was, pictures like that would either be permanently buried as “Not in the public interest”, or, if they were, there would be some serious fact checking to make sure the story and the facts were as watertight as a submarine’s engine room. But now, it’s all about money, and such “frivolities” as “fact-checking” and “decency” are falling by the wayside.
So yeah, I’d rather see more Hard News and less Gossip and Sensationalism in the news.
The answer is “Yes, but…”
I want “real news.” I just don’t trust Walter Cronkite to decide what the “real news” is.
It’s easy enough to agree that pop culture crap should be left to “Entertainment Tonight.” But even if CBS News were to stick to “hard” stories, I don’t trust Katie Couric to know what the genuinely important “hard” stories are.
I’d have to say “yes, but.” I typically don’t mind “lost cat” stories, but I do find myself minding the sneaky editorializing. If opinions absolutely must make up part of the news, I’d like to see fewer general opinions sought from a random person as to a hard news story (“Ms. Passerby, what do you think should happen to Criminal Defendant if he is convicted?”) and more opinions sought from people who have enough background information to craft an educated opinion (“Mr. Lawyer, what will likely happen to Criminal Defendant if he is convicted?”).
I don’t mind sports if the sports story in question is actually newsworthy. Championship games, star players getting injured, a governing body’s rule change to the sport–those would (IMHO) count. Asking a random third-string player about the team’s playoff chances during a run-of-the-mill practice early in the season wouldn’t.
Weather is a purely local matter. Especially in a four-season climate, you want to know what to expect (winter storm or light snowfall or rain?) and how to dress for the day (parka or jacket?). But I don’t think weather is necessary in a national newscast. If I’m wondering whether I’ll need my parka locally, I don’t need to hear that it’s raining in a city 2000 miles away.
Anything to do with celebrities or pop culture should be left to supermarket tabloids or specialty TV shows. Celebrities who get drunk or stoned, or are going in or leaving rehab shouldn’t be newsworthy. Such things happen to ordinary people every day; it is difficult to understand why a celebrity getting drunk in a bar is any different than the next-door neighbour getting drunk in a bar. Celebrities in foreign locations saving whales or feeding children don’t belong in a newscast; they’re just shilling for their causes and the news is giving them free publicity. Similarly, newscasts should avoid anything to do with other television offerings–if you want to know what’s been happening on American Idol or Survivor, watch the show, not the news.
I want to be rid of news teases that take up so much of the time, and the newest trend, especially in local news, is the semi-news story that will tell you some information, but if you want the whole story, visit their website. News used to be informative, with ads a necessary evil, nowadays they are tricks to get you to watch ads by changing the way they give you the news.
Or- just as bad, IMHO- the “What common household chemical could inadvertently awaken Cthulhu? Find out in 60 seconds…” and then going to ads, before coming back with something like “The local Lovecraft Players’ annual production of Cthulhu Rises! is being sponsored by Abraxo Chemicals this year…” or, in short, a fluff piece with absolutely no actual connection to the CATASTROPHE! implied in the teaser.
Detroit’s local news is so bad they have cooking and exercise shows incorporated in the news. Then while the news is on ,they show promos trying to get you to watch the news tomorrow. It is horrible. Real local news is about 5 minutes per hour.
I would like a real news shows, both local and network. I mostly get my news from the internet. I do not have to watch commercials either.
Can I hear an AMEN to that. What is so hard about delivering just the facts? I understand that the delivery of said “facts” can be tainted with opinion quite easily; however, I also believe that the vast majority of opinion can be deleted without any loss to the viewing public. If I want opinion, I can find it elsewhere. The news should be just that.
That’s why I love the news we have here. The two commercial TV channels have an hour-long broadcast at 8PM, and the first half is pure news - hard, serious, in-depth stuff, with the anchors never cracking a smile (unless it’s a sardonic one, in face of some obvious irony). The second half hour usually contains some fluff, but even then, much of it is “socially important” issues. The actual fluff is often left for the 7:00 PM pre-news show.
People take the news seriously around here.
Hard question to answer.
Yes, the news in the USA is generally fluff crap with sporadic bits of “real” news thrown in, but rarely in any real depth and usually just for a few minutes tops. Like there isn’t any news in the rest of the world more important than some Hollywood scandal/divorce/DUI arrest? Plus they love to tease you, “Will the world end tomorrow at noon? Stay tuned!” and, after you sit through 28 minutes of fluff, the teaser is finally exposed as some lunatic who ran naked through a Burger King screaming “the world will end tomorrow at noon!” Ha, ha - sucker - we kept you on this channel for that!
Then again, having lived in Germany - their news is often drier than dust. They can talk (in a monotone) for 20 minutes on the plight of Bolivian cotton workers, followed by 10 minutes about some local election in some part of Botswana where the main issue was to build new feed storage facilities, or repair the old ones.
I guess it depends on who is deciding what is “real news”. It would be nice, however, to occasionally see stories about real issues in other countries before those situations become hotbeds and require military action.
What I hate is the “gawker syndrome”. In today’s newspaper there were two stories about families being murdered. One in the States and one in the Australia - both apparenbtly domestically motivated. This is not really news. So? There were five more murders.
If its a story about how extreme family violence is on the rise, illustrated by these two mass murders fine. If not - its not really any of my business.
I also hat ecelebrity stories with a passion. Sports start got caught speeding? Big deal - his business we all do it. Wanna report on something that affects his actual playing ability, fine. If it doesn’t its got nothing to do with anybody other than him.
OK, which facts? Facts about which stories? What if the only verification you can get is a single source (Cronkite held out for two)? It’s no less of a fact if it was only seen by one person, after all.
“Unbiased news” is even more of a fairy tale than Santa Claus: There really are guys who dress in red and give away toys.
That’s what CNN Headline News used to be. (I understand it may still be so during the daytime, but I’m at work then.) I used to love it because it was the biggest news on a 30 minute or so loop, updated as needed, just the “major crisis in _____” and maybe highlights of Obama’s speech or news from Iraq, etc… If there was any entertainment news it was something fairly major (e.g. a celebrity death or a major awards show results but not the “guess who’s been screwing who” or “guess who’s Sean Penn’s pissed at today” type fluff stuff). At night Headline News is now as vapid as regular CNN and in fact has repeats of many of the same shows.
CNN Nighttime lineup has very little actual news. I’m convinced that between them Larry King, Lou Dobbs, and Nancy Grace actually suck the intelligence right out of shows airing on other networks for the hours their shows air on any network. (Lou Dobbs isn’t quite as aggressively stupid as Grace and King but if Jesus Christ returned to Earth- starting in Salt Lake City- he’d lead with a story about Mexicans holding up a liquor store in San Jose; one night he’s going to snap and open fire on his camera crew on air one when he becomes convinced they’re Hondurans here illegally intent on replacing him with a Telemundo host.) Anderson Cooper may be the news host you’d most like to play with when he’s naked and he’s definitely several cuts above the others, but he’s really not a whole lot more “journalistic” in his depth; on a scale where Jay Leno is 1 and Edgar R. Murrow is 5 he’s maybe a 3.) And compared to Fox News, CNN is of course Metatron.
So short answer: yeah, I agree with Cronkite. We need a concise and as objective as possible news half hour at night. Daily Show and Colbert Report are keeping people far more informed than the network news.
So long as it’s actually news, not ‘stuff we think will get us ratings so we’re going to report it as news’ stuff.
I’m sick of stuff like this: BBC News reports that a weekly curry ‘may fight dementia’ on the basis of unpublished, not yet peer reviewed research that actually only applies to animal models. BBC NEWS | Health | Weekly curry 'may fight dementia'
Report it when it’s actually a proven fact, dammit. This article became the most emailed article on that site for a week, but I bet very few people actually read the full article and understood the limitations of the research.
Yes, with reservations. What qualifies as real news is somewhat subjective and seems mostly determined by what “others” are reporting. Also, imho, a certain amount of analysis is often necessary. In many cases, the context of of the story is not widely known and without it, there is no way to make an informed judgment.
I don’t have cable in large part because of the endless repetition of “news” and, of course, the commercials. I get my local weather on the web from an “amateur” weather station (with real time updates) 2 mi from where I live.
Totally agree. I catch them on the web the next day. They come as close to cogent analysis of Washington BS as anyone. I also like many of the interviews of politicians, other govt figures and authors of provocative new books which can be ordered thru my local library.
Yes, but with the same caveat others have given, that what facts and what stories, and even the order those stories are in is editorial content.
I miss the old Headline News, but the morning show isn’t that bad. There’s too much time spent on the “Small Business Success” and such, but it isn’t talk show crap like they have in the evenings. I’d really like something close to BBC Newshour condensed to 30 minutes, and delivered with the chipperness of someone like Robin Meade, running in a loop.
I haven’t watched local evening news in years, as it’s usually on when I want to go to bed, and early news seems to be sensationalist Fox crap.
I think it would be nice to have the old CNN Headline News back. It had fluff, but you knew when, in the course of the half-hour loop, the fluff was going to happen.
I think The News Hour has always done a creditable job of delivering the news and balancing it with commentary. It’s every bit as good as Cronkite’s program ever was, except that it doesn’t have Cronkite. Or Sevareid. Which is to say that the personalities are pretty bland, but the substance if just fine.
Fluff is far from the worst thing going on in news these days, though. The worst thing is that everybody can find a bald-faced liar who will tell them exactly what they want to hear.
Yes.
And please no anchors asking me to visit the broadcast’s FaceBook page.
Yes.
And more Michael Jackson coverage, please. :rolleyes: