I turned on FOX at one point during the '08 returns. If the faces had been any longer I would have checked the settings on my TV.
When Reagan was President.
And Reagan’s media advisor? Roger Ailes.
Drinking. Don’t forget drinking.
Election night 2016. Only time I’ve been blotto drunk in 25+ years.
When did the breakdown between news reports and editorial happen? Even in newspapers which had a slant, they tried to keep the two separate and clearly delineated.
I think this is the main reason. If I can quote my own post in another thread, the relationship between viewers and media has reversed since the 70’s.
*…but I’d like to explain my reasoning (it’s not politics, at least not directly).
I think there has been a fundamental shift in the relationship between us and our media. In the past, we were customers presented with products by the media, as part of delivering news. Today it’s flipped around, and we are the product being presented to advertisers. And media has devolved into glaring, flashing carnival barkers shrieking at us to keep us watching. Trying to fill 24 hours of news screen with the product (our eyes) requires piling on as much strife, stress and fear as possible. There isn’t really that much news, so minor things get elevated to world-ending levels of hype.
Some examples (again, avoiding politics here),
1977 weather report: “A cold front is moving thru the Midwest this afternoon and storms are likely for Kansas and Oklahoma…”
2017 weather channel: “46 MILLION PEOPLE AT RISK FROM DEADLY STORMS!”*
Picking a “side” and demonizing the other is one way to keep people angered and watching.
Maybe it’s just me, but I think there’s been a similar shift in the on-air advertising as well. Instead of extolling the virtues of their (supposedly) superior product, they’re going for either jealousy or fear. Notice how many car ads have someone showing off their car, while the neighbors peer through the blinds with envy. I’ve seen a few that even manage to show wifey giving hubby a mild go-to-hell look after admiring the new ride next door. That’s about as subtle as throwing the football thru the tire in the Viagra ad. Without our product, you ain’t gettin’ laid. If they don’t go for envy, they’ll go for fear by showing how SoccerMom and her brood were saved by one or another safety features.
I think almost everything on that damned box (and other media too) is designed to stress out the product and keep its eyes on the screen.
Link to the “Life Improvement” thread I quoted above (post #4)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=828776
2017 newspaper headline: Police respond to report of body found near local railroad track
1863 newspaper headline: A Young Lady Cut to Pieces on a Railroad Track (real headline)
2017 article on a suicide on a railroad track: “Police responded to the Main Street railroad crossing for a report of a person being hit by a train. Investigators determined that the incident was a suicide. The crossing was closed for three hours.”
1862 article: “…Their heads were completely severed from their bodies and mashed to pieces, their brains scattered about upon the track for fifteen or twenty feet…”
24 hour news and the internet played a huge role in that they decreased the news cycle to days or even hours instead of weeks and months. Rather than having all day to prepare the story for the evening news or the morning paper, news and media has mere seconds to catch your attention and keep it for as long as it can. The only way to do that is with partisan headlines guaranteed to enrage people into clicking on them.
Number of people killed so far in the deadly super storm…zero.
The anomaly was Television, in my view.
Television journalism in the 60’s and 70’s had to be neutral. There were just three sources for the news that most Americans viewed in that period: ABC, CBS, and NBC. If any one of them had been perceived to be partisan they would lose half their audience. So they fought one another to be viewed as the most thoroughly objective.
Then Fox News and the internet happened, and everything went back to normal.
That may be true. But the CNN reaction to the Georgia election results isn’t in that category. By most accounts, the Republican was fairly experiance while the Democrat has never held office before, and yet the reaction was similar.
I tend to think the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s, most (not all, but most) Americans could get their share of the American dream. And when that began to not be the case, it got more bitter.
No, I think Quimper had it exactly right. When there were only three networks, there wasn’t anyplace for viewers to TURN TO, if one or all of them turned obviously partisan.
I think the idea of unbiased journalism is probably an accident. During and after World War Two especially, our sides’ propaganda declared that the real reason why the “bad guys” were constantly proving that they WERE “bad guys,” was because they had obviously slanted, government controlled “news.” What made the United States, and capitalism so inherently Holy and Obviously Wonderful, was that it was supposedly entirely and independently natural, i.e. unbiased.
In the ensuing years, lots of political manipulators have jumped at the opportunity to pretend that their opponents are inherently evil bad guys too (hence the repeated claims that so-and-so is just like Hitler, or just like Stalin). So they attack every appearance of bias, even as they put forward an entirely biased alternate viewpoint.
The real reason why the OP THINKS that the media have all “turned to the dark side” of bias, is because we’re going through a weird period where the politicians aren’t just propagandizing and lying, they are lying about propagandizing about lying. Worst of all, we’ve arrived at a time when there is NO ONE AT ALL of sufficient stature and respect, who can speak real truth to everyone, and where more people than ever genuinely claim that ignoring alternate viewpoints is a virtue.
Conservatives have called the mainstream media out for leftist bias since the '40s and '50s and created their own conservative press to counter it. Decrying the liberal elite press was a big part of the cultural backlash to the '60s. Ailes was late to the party. When the media feigned neutrality it still carried water for the American government and their corporate donors. Not a lot of sympathetic stories about communists, jihadists, or countries fighting against Western interests. Wouldn’t that be fun: a slew of mainstream editorials praising the Soviets for putting missiles in Cuba.
Major cleanup needed on the Associated Press aisle:
*" “Pharma Bro” just won’t keep his mouth shut.
Even with his federal securities fraud trial set to begin Monday, Martin Shkreli has blatantly defied his attorneys’ advice to lay low. The former pharmaceutical CEO, who became a pariah after raising the cost of a life-saving drug 5,000 percent, has been preening for cameras and trolling on social media, potentially complicating his defense."*
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/pharma-bro-defies-advice-quiet-fraud-trial-48275240
Um, “preening” and “trolling”, while perhaps an accurate analysis of what that dirtbag Shkreli is doing, are not legitimately part of an unbiased news story. If anyone feels comfortable with a major news organization utilizing such terms in its routine coverage, I feel sorry for you.
Why not?
Most reporters are human, some humans have morals, and many people with morals can find something they don’t like about Trump, even if it’s just how he faked a picture of himself on a magazine cover.
It also probably doesn’t help that the image of an impartial news source doesn’t seem as valued anymore. Any actual impartial news source would get called fake anyway.
So it’s just because it’s Trump, huh? Not a squeak about Obama’s lies or Clinton’s horndogging in the White House?
I have morals. I have yet to find anything to complain about re Trump. He’s brash, yes, and there’s a lot of bark on him. But bottom line, he’s done more good for this country in less than six months than Obama did in eight years. And that’s worth liking.
Anything specific?
Meh, Like if the scandals of Clinton were hidden, that is really not remembering what took place. And AFAIK Clothahump has complained before about the degradation of the wall between church and state as he is not a believer. Since Trump is not standing in the way of what the religious right wants for America and there is not an squeak there one should wonder what if anything would be seen by him to be bad when coming from Trump.
And the harsh reality is investigative journalism doesn’t make any money. People genuinely don’t care as much as the Woke AF crowd would like and basically the average person is so jaded now anyway they’re indifferent to large-scale tax haven scandals and the like because it’s pretty much what we expect super rich people to do.
It’s worth noting there are (more or less) impartial news sources - the BBC being the best-known example.
I’d argue that the BBC is worse than the American news channels. The US news shows make no attempt to hide their bias so you know exactly where you are with them. With the BBC the bias (as there is bias in all news reporting) is subtle, hidden and very difficult to spot until you look hard or listen carefully. I much prefer bias to be out in the open where you can see and allow for it.