That’s a problem when such unpopular views, though perfectly legal, just aren’t given during newscasts(gee, I wonder why?). It’s really easy to find no problem with personal opinions about religion being added onto news reports when you have no disagreement with the popular opinion being given, isn’t it?
It’s even easier to complain about editorializing in news if and only if you disagree with the editorial. You aren’t objecting to oxen being gored in general - just when it’s yours.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m with this. My strongest memories are of Eric Sevareid delivering the news, then there was the editorial/comment/opinion at the end, just before signoff. However, it was specifically noted that it was separate from the regular news.
In a way, I blame Ted Turner and CNN for creating the 24-hour news cycle. Since “news” people can only report the facts of the story so many times, it becomes necessary to fill the time with something. Hence, what was once clear cable journalism has morphed into an opinion-laden scream fest. Not that the internet is so much better, with the standards falling (“the great thing about the internet is that anyone can publish anything. The bad thing about the internet is that anyone can publish anything.”)
Show me a case of the opposite opinion popping up during a newscast and I will give my opinion on it…but I can’t find an example. Show me you’ve even got an ox to gore.
I don’t need to. You are the one complaining about editorializing in general in news broadcasts. Yet the only example you give is one of an opinion with which you disagree.
As was mentioned, God cooties. There’s no more to it than that. Boo hoo, poor persecuted atheists, etc., etc.
Regards,
Shodan
Just admit you can’t you can’t find one. Come back when have an ox to gore.
Re: Cronkite. I remember David Brinkley editorializing at leat once. He had a story that motivated from someplace like Muleshoe, Texas, and at the end said "I don’t think anyplace should have a name like Muleshoe, except maybe Washington. Chet . . . "
I do dislike editorialising in the news. Thankfully we get far less of it here in the UK but the one thing that does make my blood boil is the “how do you feel” school of journalism.
To be honest I don’t give a flying fuck how anyone “feels”, nor do I give a toss about personal interest stories. Give me the facts, give me something over and above a blatant attempt to get the interviewee to gush inarticulately or burst into tears. Give me unbiased insight.
Once again I’ll refer m’right honorable friends to those purveyors of comedy truths
“Mitchell and Webb”
Whatever side of this you are on, one thing is sure: it’s not going to change for the better, as long as “News” programs are required to be profitable.
All news is heavily biased by personal opinion. If you don’t notice the bias it means that they are just confirming your own biases. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.
And I don’t like the habit (do you have it in the US?) after someone’s convicted in a trial of having the senior police officer involved delivering some sententious summing-up about the villain involved. That’s the judge’s job.
I had that once. It took two weeks and several enemas to clear it out.
What really chaps my balls is when the local news adds some randos Facebook or Twitter commentary to the end of a story.
Like they’ll be talking about a local brush fire and then add:
“And dipshit1234 on Facebook said, ‘Fire scary!’”
“And I’mabuttnugget on Twitter said, ‘Fire hot’”
Who gives a shit about some random nobody and what dipshittery fell out of their brain?
As a former reporter (had to sneak that in) I am all for vigorous and well-written broadcast editorials (a pretty much extinct species) while despising the practice of sneaking one’s views into what is supposed to be news reporting (whether it involves broadcast, print or online “journalism”).
Here I strongly suspect the OP would have been less outraged (if at all) by a reporter inserting into a story his favorable view towards atheists.* And I similarly suspect Bricker would be busy writing an angry letter to station management if the reporter mentioned in the OP had alluded to his belief in the futility of prayer.*
*of course, the likelihood of either of these things happening is somewhere south of zero, unless the reporter was looking for an excuse to get fired.
It would.
So?
If you ask me, personal opinions are ok in right context and content, are not moronic, and are specified as such.
So second commentator lacks specification (to me, or in my opinion, I think, etc)