-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
radio & TV news
- Thread starter BigJimmy
- Start date
I share some of your disappointment that news content on radio and TV is a bit anemic, but I am equally frustrated with web site news. They are jamming in just as much OR MORE advertising content. Further, many on-line news sources require you to register complete with your e-mail address... which means now they fill your mail-box with all kinds of debris and flotsam, AND ADVERTISING.
Yes, I have my disappointments with broadcast news... but it may actually be better, more honest, than what you get on-line.
Yes, I have my disappointments with broadcast news... but it may actually be better, more honest, than what you get on-line.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
Or it may not be. As with anything else, you need to be selective and skeptical. Or, as the song said, "You better shop around."
The real issue is how news content is produced, not how it is distributed. TV and radio target a particular audience. A century ago, tabloid mongers like Hearst and Pulitzer did it; now TV fills the same demographic niches.
TV started out as a class medium, until the great unwashed could afford TVs. Then it morphed into a mass medium. And they deliver the lowest common denominator audience big bucks advertisers want.
The real issue is how news content is produced, not how it is distributed. TV and radio target a particular audience. A century ago, tabloid mongers like Hearst and Pulitzer did it; now TV fills the same demographic niches.
TV started out as a class medium, until the great unwashed could afford TVs. Then it morphed into a mass medium. And they deliver the lowest common denominator audience big bucks advertisers want.
Or it may not be. As with anything else, you need to be selective and skeptical. Or, as the song said, "You better shop around."
The real issue is how news content is produced, not how it is distributed. TV and radio target a particular audience. A century ago, tabloid mongers like Hearst and Pulitzer did it; now TV fills the same demographic niches.
TV started out as a class medium, until the great unwashed could afford TVs. Then it morphed into a mass medium. And they deliver the lowest common denominator audience big bucks advertisers want.
Same with radio. Superficial headlines sold to the masses. Plus traffic, weather, sports in mind--numbing
repetition. I'm generallly in NYC & stay with the NY Times website or use NPR or PBS on
occasion,
The real issue is how news content is produced, not how it is distributed. TV and radio target a particular audience. A century ago, tabloid mongers like Hearst and Pulitzer did it; now TV fills the same demographic niches.
TV started out as a class medium, until the great unwashed could afford TVs. Then it morphed into a mass medium. And they deliver the lowest common denominator audience big bucks advertisers want.
In this topic, we may be dealing with "perception" as much as or more than fact.
Depending on when your perception of media begins (as in 'what is your age?'), depending on where you ranked in the society's pecking order ranging from class to crass, you will have a totally different view of the place of media in society, and the value and appropriateness of media content.
Except for a short gestation/incubation period (1939 to 1949?) when was TV anything but a mass media for the great unwashed? The people with "class" were much too occupied with concerts, book clubs, meetings of the D.A.R., social events at the country club, and travel for the sake of travel. The people with class were busy keeping up contacts with their alumni club because it was good for career advancement. People with class were reading non-fiction books about class and history and the progress of mankind. They were busy forming and running charitable organizations to look after the health and welfare of the bottom end of the great unwashed masses.
The morphing of advertisers may have had as much input into media change as the morphing of the audience. Back when advertisers were companies with the name of the founder, and the founder or off-spring with the same family name still ran the company, programming content was sometimes driven by the "class" of the women in the family. I remember working in a radio station in farm country where the Purina Dealer (for the unwashed masses of city folk... Purina was the leading company in the era for manufacturing food for farm animals. Pet Food would come later.) and the dealer wanted to sponsor our daily farm news program. We had a peculiar bit of music for theme music (what we cal bumper music today?) because his high-class wife did not want to face her friends at the ladies club and other gatherings and be known as the family sponsoring a program that didn't have class.
The farmers sitting at the kitchen table in bib overalls and wearing boots with bits of cow manure on them didn't give 'two whoops from hell' about the theme music.
One last suggestion: "We do it because we can!" Maybe the biggest change in how broadcasting does news is similar to why Victorian Homes in America have so much ginger-bread trim as part of the style. We do it because we can. New technology meant we could do things we used to not do. We acquired 'mobile news units' and we are going to use the thing whether there is any news that require mobile coverage or not! The 6 P.M. news on TV in many markets today has at least two fires in progress with maybe a total damage of $20,000 between the two of them. We bought that helicopter and equipped it with live cameras. Now get out there and find leaping flames whether they are important or not. Now that our audience has phones with cameras, put at least three photos provided by viewers via their phone on the air whether they are portraying news or not.
Isn't it wonderful to be part of the 21str Century!
How about the Wire Services how much does it come into play Such as AP, Local Headline Stringers, Reuters, and TMZ provides the Commercial Media IE Local News Outlets, CNN, HLN headlines and as far as I know they don't fund as much Investigative stories as much as the Public Media outlets do.
On the Public Media outlets like NPR/APM/PRI/PRX and PBS/APT/NETA/ITVS/EPS they get their newswire content from Centers for investigative Reporting, Propublica, Local PBS and NPR affiliates, Fronteras, Kaiser Health News, and BBC. ON the Public Media outlets you tend to get Investigative Documentaries via Frontline or your Local NPR/PBS Affiliate. when PBS Newshour, NPR News cannot air a certain story due to time constraints.
On KCET and LinkTV the content comes from Journeyman pictures and nhk.
On FreeSpeechTV and alternate media contents some of the Newswire content comes from Wikileaks,RT, Indymedia center, Project Censored and the progressive Activist groups themselves.
On the Cable news outlets its the Politcal bloggers such as Tea Party/RNC Bloggers Breitbart, Drudge on Fox, DNC Bloggers on MSNBC and the Political Lobbyists themselves on both Networks.
My Point here is that the Wire Services, Content Writers and the Media Venue in Question all have a role in pleasing a specific audience and how much money they can get out of it.
On the Public Media outlets like NPR/APM/PRI/PRX and PBS/APT/NETA/ITVS/EPS they get their newswire content from Centers for investigative Reporting, Propublica, Local PBS and NPR affiliates, Fronteras, Kaiser Health News, and BBC. ON the Public Media outlets you tend to get Investigative Documentaries via Frontline or your Local NPR/PBS Affiliate. when PBS Newshour, NPR News cannot air a certain story due to time constraints.
On KCET and LinkTV the content comes from Journeyman pictures and nhk.
On FreeSpeechTV and alternate media contents some of the Newswire content comes from Wikileaks,RT, Indymedia center, Project Censored and the progressive Activist groups themselves.
On the Cable news outlets its the Politcal bloggers such as Tea Party/RNC Bloggers Breitbart, Drudge on Fox, DNC Bloggers on MSNBC and the Political Lobbyists themselves on both Networks.
My Point here is that the Wire Services, Content Writers and the Media Venue in Question all have a role in pleasing a specific audience and how much money they can get out of it.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
In this topic, we may be dealing with "perception" as much as or more than fact.
Depending on when your perception of media begins (as in 'what is your age?'), depending on where you ranked in the society's pecking order ranging from class to crass, you will have a totally different view of the place of media in society, and the value and appropriateness of media content.
Except for a short gestation/incubation period (1939 to 1949?) when was TV anything but a mass media for the great unwashed? The people with "class" were much too occupied with concerts, book clubs, meetings of the D.A.R., social events at the country club, and travel for the sake of travel. The people with class were busy keeping up contacts with their alumni club because it was good for career advancement. People with class were reading non-fiction books about class and history and the progress of mankind. They were busy forming and running charitable organizations to look after the health and welfare of the bottom end of the great unwashed masses.
The morphing of advertisers may have had as much input into media change as the morphing of the audience. Back when advertisers were companies with the name of the founder, and the founder or off-spring with the same family name still ran the company, programming content was sometimes driven by the "class" of the women in the family. I remember working in a radio station in farm country where the Purina Dealer (for the unwashed masses of city folk... Purina was the leading company in the era for manufacturing food for farm animals. Pet Food would come later.) and the dealer wanted to sponsor our daily farm news program. We had a peculiar bit of music for theme music (what we cal bumper music today?) because his high-class wife did not want to face her friends at the ladies club and other gatherings and be known as the family sponsoring a program that didn't have class.
The farmers sitting at the kitchen table in bib overalls and wearing boots with bits of cow manure on them didn't give 'two whoops from hell' about the theme music.
One last suggestion: "We do it because we can!" Maybe the biggest change in how broadcasting does news is similar to why Victorian Homes in America have so much ginger-bread trim as part of the style. We do it because we can. New technology meant we could do things we used to not do. We acquired 'mobile news units' and we are going to use the thing whether there is any news that require mobile coverage or not! The 6 P.M. news on TV in many markets today has at least two fires in progress with maybe a total damage of $20,000 between the two of them. We bought that helicopter and equipped it with live cameras. Now get out there and find leaping flames whether they are important or not. Now that our audience has phones with cameras, put at least three photos provided by viewers via their phone on the air whether they are portraying news or not.
Isn't it wonderful to be part of the 21str Century!
Apparently you have some unfavorable "perceptions" of the more upscale socio-economic groups.
Early TV had (very literate) live dramas, symphony concerts (the original and intended purpose of Studio 8-H, which now houses SNL) and operas. The news divisions saw themselves as a public service and patterned themselves after the New York Times - not the New York Post or National Enquirer. Yes, it was a time when individuals operated broadcasting - not anonymous corporations.
I'd agree TV news went to hell in a handcart with the advent of ENG and the concurrent realization that if you dumbed down and tarted up news, the way the barons of Yellow Journalism did, you could make it a profit center.
Apparently you have some unfavorable "perceptions" of the more upscale socio-economic groups.
Early TV had (very literate) live dramas, symphony concerts (the original and intended purpose of Studio 8-H, which now houses SNL) and operas. The news divisions saw themselves as a public service and patterned themselves after the New York Times - not the New York Post or National Enquirer. Yes, it was a time when individuals operated broadcasting - not anonymous corporations.
I guess if you were in Boston or New York City in the early days, that could be your memory.
I remember radio as we came out of WWII. George Burns and Gracie Allen. Amos and Andy. Jot-em Down Store. Jack Benny. Art Linkletter. Arthur Godfrey. Sam Spade. Out here in fly-over country we didn't get much symphony concerts from Studio 8-H. We got $64,000 question... We received The Grand Ol'Opry, The Louisiana Hayride, and the Chicago Barn Dance. In Texas we had The Chuck Wagon Gang (Bewley's Best Flour) and Sheb Wooley and the Calumet Indians. (Calument Baking Powder to go with your Beewly's Best Flour.) I guess when NYC was broadcasting concerts and drama, we were getting Ernest Tubb, Bob Wills and Minnie Pearl.
From 1948 til about 1953 there was a freeze on granting contruction permits for new television stations. In 1953 there were 14 states that had zero, nada, zilch. I never lived in a household that had a TV set until I purchased one in 1960. You are waxing poetic about a supposed "quality" TV that most of the nation never experieced.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
GRC: Not to disparage your own experiences, but most of the nation did experience - or had the opportunity to experience - TV's golden age. The prime time TV audience surpassed the prime time radio audience in 1952. Maybe smaller markets lacked three (or more) stations but they did have one or two and those stations cherry-picked shows from multiple networks.
Why did people go out and buy TVs when the networks were still programming old time radio? One theory is that the top (sponsor produced and controlled) radio shows and their talent had gotten stale. Many had been on for two decades (contrary to the kind of turn-over seen today). One theory holds that it wasn't just people wanting to see what radio talent and characters looked like (most people knew; movies based on radio shows were quite common). TV had fresh approaches and fresh talent. Yes, TV was concentrated in big cities and it's appeal was to upscale urban audiences. Look at the 50s schedules: Studio One. Playhouse 90. Philco Playhouse. Kraft Theater (often produced in 8-H). Armstrong Circle Theater. Adaptations of classic plays but also original (again very literate) dramas.
If you studied your history, you'd know the "WSM Barn Dance" became the "Grand Ole Opry" thanks to an off-hand remark by George Hay opening the show after the conclusion of a classic music program WSM carried from NBC (Red). Network radio had a much more culturally diverse schedule, which included the programs you mention as well as "high-brow" stuff. But that was when the FCC insisted on that sort of thing. And before broadcasters worried about flow.
Why did people go out and buy TVs when the networks were still programming old time radio? One theory is that the top (sponsor produced and controlled) radio shows and their talent had gotten stale. Many had been on for two decades (contrary to the kind of turn-over seen today). One theory holds that it wasn't just people wanting to see what radio talent and characters looked like (most people knew; movies based on radio shows were quite common). TV had fresh approaches and fresh talent. Yes, TV was concentrated in big cities and it's appeal was to upscale urban audiences. Look at the 50s schedules: Studio One. Playhouse 90. Philco Playhouse. Kraft Theater (often produced in 8-H). Armstrong Circle Theater. Adaptations of classic plays but also original (again very literate) dramas.
If you studied your history, you'd know the "WSM Barn Dance" became the "Grand Ole Opry" thanks to an off-hand remark by George Hay opening the show after the conclusion of a classic music program WSM carried from NBC (Red). Network radio had a much more culturally diverse schedule, which included the programs you mention as well as "high-brow" stuff. But that was when the FCC insisted on that sort of thing. And before broadcasters worried about flow.
GRC: Not to disparage your own experiences, but most of the nation did experience - or had the opportunity to experience - TV's golden age. The prime time TV audience surpassed the prime time radio audience in 1952.
So what years are you calling "Television's Golden Age"? I haven't "pondered" that question, but I doubt if I would put it as early as 1952.
So did TV audience match and exceed radio's audience in 1952 in markets like NYC and other metro areas, or do we have credible data to show what the TV audience was in Harlingen, TX... or Ardmore, OK.... or Peoria, IL... or Salina, Ks... or Fargo, ND in 1952? By that time the rural population had already shrunk in comparison to the Metropolitan area population, but the ratio had nor fallen to what it is today.
I guess our little effort at "I understand society better than you do." is a bit of a detour from the Original Poster's assertion that radio and TV news today is pretty crappy... while magazines and the Internet are the perfect poster children for good journalism. That discussion is hard to have unless the two who are debating grew up in the same time period, and in the same geography.
I get my news from the radio, the local newspaper, and the internet -- in that order. My best friend has cable TV (I don't watch TV at home, just never turn it on), and I catch the TV news when I visit her. I have found that TV news is shallow and sensationalistic compared to radio news and the local paper. The national networks deal in soundbites (usually not very much depth unless it's a huge story), and the local TV news programs tend to push the sensationalistic side of everything.
The local paper is getting more and more biased as it changes hands (the people running it have changed over the past year) and basically it's just a source of bare facts. The bias lies in which facts they leave out, or where they place them in the paper, or in the story. I have noticed that they lleave out a lot of big stories that appear elsewhere.
Radio news is actually pretty good. Early mornings you can get the Wall Street Journal report, Jim Bohannon's America in the Morning, and several other in depth radio news and feature programs that are pretty good. Then you've got NPR (which I don't listen to), the CBC (audible if you live in the northern tier of states and have a good AM or FM radio), and a lot of public radio stations that play the BBC or other news services overnights.
The local paper is getting more and more biased as it changes hands (the people running it have changed over the past year) and basically it's just a source of bare facts. The bias lies in which facts they leave out, or where they place them in the paper, or in the story. I have noticed that they lleave out a lot of big stories that appear elsewhere.
Radio news is actually pretty good. Early mornings you can get the Wall Street Journal report, Jim Bohannon's America in the Morning, and several other in depth radio news and feature programs that are pretty good. Then you've got NPR (which I don't listen to), the CBC (audible if you live in the northern tier of states and have a good AM or FM radio), and a lot of public radio stations that play the BBC or other news services overnights.
F
FredLeonard
Guest
GRC: The total (national) prime time audience for TV exceeded the total (national) prime time audience for radio in 1952.
I don't know about the specific towns you mentioned but in 1952 (and up to the end of the freeze), some small markets did not have TV at all. Possibly the decline in TV - and TV news - is related to the boondocks coming online.
New media are not "the poster child" for good journalism. That's not what he said. However, good journalism is available through the Internet - from online publications and from good traditional newspapers. It's not available from broadcasters - either in broadcasts or through their websites. No, not even NPR, which seems increasingly to rely on "partners." Much of the reason may be so-called "broadcast journalists" are not real journalists. Journalists are writers. Broadcasters care more about artsy-craftsy production values, not about content and meaning. Broadcasters in news usually are people who never made it as DJs, talk show hosts or personalities.
I don't know about the specific towns you mentioned but in 1952 (and up to the end of the freeze), some small markets did not have TV at all. Possibly the decline in TV - and TV news - is related to the boondocks coming online.
New media are not "the poster child" for good journalism. That's not what he said. However, good journalism is available through the Internet - from online publications and from good traditional newspapers. It's not available from broadcasters - either in broadcasts or through their websites. No, not even NPR, which seems increasingly to rely on "partners." Much of the reason may be so-called "broadcast journalists" are not real journalists. Journalists are writers. Broadcasters care more about artsy-craftsy production values, not about content and meaning. Broadcasters in news usually are people who never made it as DJs, talk show hosts or personalities.
GRC: The total (national) prime time audience for TV exceeded the total (national) prime time audience for radio in 1952.
Yes, you posted that earlier in the thread, and part of my contribution to the conversation was to suggest that maybe the audience ratings system in 1952 reflects what was happening in NYC, Boston, Chicago, St. Louis, Los Angeles and San Francisco. My question was: Was the listening and the viewing of rural "flyover country" reflected in these surveys. (Maybe in 1952 the terminology should be 'rail-through' country rather than the current term of 'fly-over'.)
I don't know about the specific towns you mentioned but in 1952 (and up to the end of the freeze), some small markets did not have TV at all. Possibly the decline in TV - and TV news - is related to the boondocks coming online.
Fred: You may be based in Ketchikan AK for all I know, but from reading the messages you post, I assume you are based in the Northeastern Corridor of our country and your view of media and the capabilities of media and the "product" produced by media is highly influenced by what media in that part of the nation does.
Some large markets have media that does world class coverage. Some large markets have media that limp along and are an embarrassment to their industry.
I don't know if business travel or personal travel ever takes you to places like West Virginia or Green Bay, WI or Flagstaff, AZ or maybe Fort Smith/Fayetteville, AR (home base for Walmart, Tyson, ABF Trucking). You may be right. Maybe the decline in TV and TV news is related to the boondocks coming on line. Maybe the best broadcast journalism in the nation is practiced in some of these "backwater?" markets.
What are you saying when you say: "the boondocks coming online." Are you using the online terminology in the old-school sense that they became part of the broadcast world, or are you using online to mean the current concept that they moved from on-air to on-line delivery? It is hard to discuss something with a fuzzy definition.
New media are not "the poster child" for good journalism. That's not what he said. However, good journalism is available through the Internet - from online publications and from good traditional newspapers. It's not available from broadcasters - either in broadcasts or through their websites. No, not even NPR, which seems increasingly to rely on "partners." Much of the reason may be so-called "broadcast journalists" are not real journalists. Journalists are writers. Broadcasters care more about artsy-craftsy production values, not about content and meaning. Broadcasters in news usually are people who never made it as DJs, talk show hosts or personalities.
Wow. You need to take a road-trip, Hoss. I am a critic of journalism but I try to target my complaints toward specific units or segments. You are painting with a really broad brush, my friend. If you are keeping up-to-date on business trends, you know that all kinds of businesses are relying on "partners". It is part of the "Lean Process" which is the current terminology for what 20 years ago we were calling "The Toyota Style of manufacturing". Some media partnering results in excellent results. And yes, sometimes partnering is just subletting what is assumed to be unimportant functions of a business or process. That is always bad management.
Last edited:
F
FredLeonard
Guest
GRC: You say "maybe." Maybe pigs fly. Are you prepared to offer examples of excellent TV news in small markets?
Please stop taking statements out of context or twisting them so you can make a point. I pointed out that TV came late to many smaller markets. Others have pointed out that early TV was geared to urban, and especially Northeast urban audiences. It's no coincidence that when smaller TV markets opened up, TV content shifted dramatically to more rural themes - both rural sitcoms but TV Westerns, and this persisted until Nielsen and ad agencies discovered demographics at the end of the 60s.
You many not understand the concept of valid generalizations. Maybe there are exceptions to the general rule that TV news sucks. If you know of any, please cite them. But a few exceptions do not disprove a rule. As a rule, small markets offer bad imitations of larger markets. Broadcasters, as a rule, can't get past "the sincerest form of flattery."
Please stop taking statements out of context or twisting them so you can make a point. I pointed out that TV came late to many smaller markets. Others have pointed out that early TV was geared to urban, and especially Northeast urban audiences. It's no coincidence that when smaller TV markets opened up, TV content shifted dramatically to more rural themes - both rural sitcoms but TV Westerns, and this persisted until Nielsen and ad agencies discovered demographics at the end of the 60s.
You many not understand the concept of valid generalizations. Maybe there are exceptions to the general rule that TV news sucks. If you know of any, please cite them. But a few exceptions do not disprove a rule. As a rule, small markets offer bad imitations of larger markets. Broadcasters, as a rule, can't get past "the sincerest form of flattery."
Fred: You have no stomach for discussion and debate. Anyone who challenges something you have posted, you go after the challenger, not the facts, not the topic. I sit back on a regular basis and watch you turn your verbiage into a hard-baked salty pretzel every time you and TheBigA bump into each other. You do the same thing when you and I are trying to participate in a thread. We call these mechanisms "discussion boards". We have "threads" where we can bounce ideas back and forth like a badminton birdie. I gain new knowledge on a regular basis by going toe-to-toe with other people and we end up typically having a conversation where we both learn something new.
Life is too short to spend all our time butting heads. (The family tells me that when I was three years old, me and the pet goat out in the corral would fight over who got to lick salt block by butting heads.) As my tag-line says: "Life is too short to waste time dancing with ugly posts." Maybe I should change the tag: take out 'ugly posts' and replace with 'win at any cost posters'.
Yeah, I used the word 'maybe' in discussing the 1952 audience studied because neither you or I have any way to evaluate the integrity of those audience studies. I used the word 'maybe' in trying to clarify what you mean when you say 'possibly the decline of TV news has something to do with the boondocks coming on line." So why is it so socially unacceptable for me to use 'maybe' while you breeze along using the word 'possibly'.
Is it possible that neither of us understand the concept of valid generalizations so why not knock of the insults... and enjoy some conversation. Try it. You may like it for a change.
I haven't spent time in the market since I have run out of people to go back and bury in the community, but if you want see a small market where TV does news appropriate to the market and geography, try the Fort Smith/Fayetteville, AR market. They do a good job of journalism appropriate for the market. Could we pick up their facility and their staff and move them to NYC and say: These people are good. Look how they do journalism in NYC. It would take them awhile. And if you brought the NYC facilities and journalism crowd from NYC and planted them in Northwest Arkansas and turned them loose, the locals likely would mutter: "Boy, that sucks something awful!"
Life is too short to spend all our time butting heads. (The family tells me that when I was three years old, me and the pet goat out in the corral would fight over who got to lick salt block by butting heads.) As my tag-line says: "Life is too short to waste time dancing with ugly posts." Maybe I should change the tag: take out 'ugly posts' and replace with 'win at any cost posters'.
Yeah, I used the word 'maybe' in discussing the 1952 audience studied because neither you or I have any way to evaluate the integrity of those audience studies. I used the word 'maybe' in trying to clarify what you mean when you say 'possibly the decline of TV news has something to do with the boondocks coming on line." So why is it so socially unacceptable for me to use 'maybe' while you breeze along using the word 'possibly'.
Is it possible that neither of us understand the concept of valid generalizations so why not knock of the insults... and enjoy some conversation. Try it. You may like it for a change.
I haven't spent time in the market since I have run out of people to go back and bury in the community, but if you want see a small market where TV does news appropriate to the market and geography, try the Fort Smith/Fayetteville, AR market. They do a good job of journalism appropriate for the market. Could we pick up their facility and their staff and move them to NYC and say: These people are good. Look how they do journalism in NYC. It would take them awhile. And if you brought the NYC facilities and journalism crowd from NYC and planted them in Northwest Arkansas and turned them loose, the locals likely would mutter: "Boy, that sucks something awful!"
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.