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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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:
One short paragraph about 1851 and the history article flashes straight to 1994! :smack: 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?”
Could the FCC even dare to treat “public service” as a criterion with today’s demented political and judicial climate?
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!
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.
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.
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.)
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. :dubious:
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
