Broadcast network coverage of Iran bombing

[TheBigA]

Here is a summary of the news channel coverage from Barrett:

How Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN Covered the U.S. Bombing Iran and Why Donald Trump Fired Back

It’s clear his years-long attacks on the media --and anyone who disagrees with him -- are a battle that will never end.

barrettmedia.com

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

“Accessibility” without honesty is meaningless. And whether it’s deliberate lies (and there are plenty of those) or spouting incoherent non sequiturs (ditto) is a somewhat meaningless distinction. We already know his intellect is…lacking. His vocabulary, his weird word choices, his inability to form a simple sentence and complete a thought without relying on one of his crutches. Journalists in all outlets, broadcast, print, online and otherwise, need to do more, well, journalism.

 

[Don CT]

“Accessibility” without honesty is meaningless. And whether it’s deliberate lies (and there are plenty of those) or spouting incoherent non sequiturs (ditto) is a somewhat meaningless distinction. We already know his intellect is…lacking. His vocabulary, his weird word choices, his inability to form a simple sentence and complete a thought without relying on one of his crutches. Journalists in all outlets, broadcast, print, online and otherwise, need to do more, well, journalism.

Sadly corporate overloads won’t let journalism happen. They are too scared of their bottom line and the administration.

 

[TheBigA]

Sadly corporate overloads won’t let journalism happen. They are too scared of their bottom line and the administration.

That's why we need public non-commercial radio, where the focus is on public service, not profits.

 

[Don CT]

That's why we need public non-commercial radio, where the focus is on public service, not profits.

We need more independent journalism where they are not worried about offending shareholders.

 

[TheBigA]

We need more independent journalism where they are not worried about offending shareholders.

Who pays for them then?

 

[Don CT]

Who pays for them then?

The people that support them.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Fox News outpaced every major broadcast network. By comparison, ABC News drew 2.8 million total viewers, NBCNews had 2 million total viewers and CBS had 1.6 million total viewers during the coverage block.

I have a theory. What was the Fox viewership vs. the other three combined prior to the mini-speech at 10:00?

Viewership on Fox News peaked between 10:00–10:15 PM ET during former President Donald Trump’s address, when Fox News drew 7.5 million total viewers and 1.6 million in the demo. For the full hour from 10 to 11 PM ET, the network averaged 5.9 million viewers and 1.1 million in the 25-54 demo.

Of course it did. Fox is the Trump network and his supporters would gravitate there.

That does not -- going back to the original dispute -- prove that they had more viewers for coverage of the event prior to his (mercifully) brief statement. And, following through on my question: I think it is a fair presumption that his supporters gravitate to Fox as a whole, whereas the rest of us are split between the other three networks.

Maybe we should be looking at it from that perspective: That the ratings are skewed because those with one POV concentrate on a single network and the ratings are diluted for everyone else.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic, but former MSNBC "Countdown" anchor Keith Olbermann does a twice-weekly podcast with the same title, with shorter bulletins in-between if events warrant.

He did such a bulletin yesterday, addressing Trump's mischaracterization of the outcome in his Saturday evening statement and then lashing out on everyone who reported (or, more importantly in his mind) agreed with the revised assessment that came out on Sunday.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann

If that link is problematic:

Countdown with Keith Olbermann (alt)

 

[Don CT]

Hoping I am not straying too far off-topic, but former MSNBC "Countdown" anchor Keith Olbermann does a twice-weekly podcast with the same title, with shorter bulletins in-between if events warrant.

He did such a bulletin yesterday, addressing Trump's mischaracterization of the outcome in his Saturday evening statement and then lashing out on everyone who reported (or, more importantly in his mind) agreed with the revised assessment that came out on Sunday.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann

If that link is problematic:

Countdown with Keith Olbermann (alt)

Is he licensing the show to iHeart or is he paid by them.

 

[TheBigA]

He did such a bulletin yesterday, addressing Trump's mischaracterization of the outcome in his Saturday evening statement and then lashing out on everyone who reported (or, more importantly in his mind) agreed with the revised assessment that came out on Sunday.

That sounds more like media criticism than actual reporting. We all know he has an opinion. Doing that kind of podcast isn't hard to do. Any of us could do the exact same thing, although we probably don't have his name recognition value. To me, he's like Clay Travis for liberals. I don't find that kind of thing a replacement for actual reporting of news.

 

[K.M. Richards]

Is he licensing the show to iHeart or is he paid by them.

He has said many times in previous podcasts that he doesn't need to do this because he has enough money saved up to live the rest of his life without working. From those statements, and the knowledge that the second link is actually his primary, I believe he has licensed iHeart to also carry it, primarily to increase its visibility and reach.

That sounds more like media criticism than actual reporting. We all know he has an opinion. Doing that kind of podcast isn't hard to do. Any of us could do the exact same thing, although we probably don't have his name recognition value. I don't find that kind of thing a replacement for actual reporting of news.

I don't think he would disagree with you. He doesn't claim to be a "news" podcast but rather frames it as a continuation of his previous commentaries when he was on MSNBC (and later, Current).

But your critique is less valid if you go back and listen to previous podcasts. Yes, he does show a disdain for a lot of what is happening in broadcast journalism, but the bulk of his commentaries are about the government (especially the current administration).

I think I should also clarify, since the syntax was unclear in my original post, that Keith was commenting on Trump's attacks on those who disagreed with him. He was not addressing the media coverage directly.

Did you even listen to the podcast before deciding what you thought it was?

 

[TheBigA]

But your critique is less valid if you go back and listen to previous podcasts. Yes, he does show a disdain for a lot of what is happening in broadcast journalism, but the bulk of his commentaries are about the government (especially the current administration).

But they're all based on his opinion, not by doing any outreach or investigation. We have lots of people bloviating from one side or another. That's fine for entertainment. Keith is a unique writer, and phrases things in an interesting and entertaining way. That's great for what it is. But that's different from someone like Richard Engel, who spends his time in dangerous places, digging for the stories behind the stories, and hopefully getting to the truth without just being opinion. So when CNN reports on something that's sourced from within the intelligence community, and then substantiated by former intelligence people with knowledge about Iran, it's not the same thing as Sean Hannity just repeating the government talking points.

The administration is criticizing CNN, but there's more to CNN's presentation of the story than just the assessment from intelligence sources. That reporting is then substantiated by further analysis from military and other perspectives from people who are familiar with the story. That becomes harder to dismiss.

 

[K.M. Richards]

I agree with your basic comparison between Olbermann and Engel. They are miles apart in their focus.

But I find Keith's perspectives useful and interesting (and yes, to a degree, entertaining) and I am glad he called out Trump on this.

I brought his podcast to the discussion as potentially being of value as we continue our own analysis.

 

[TheBigA]

So it's pretty obvious that Gabbard is under pressure from her boss or someone in the administration to find ways to attack the media:

Gabbard blasts media over Iran strike leak, touts 'new intelligence' on magnitude of destruction

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesday pushed back forcefully against what she called the “propaganda media,” accusing them of selectively leaking classified material in an attempt to undercut President Donald Trump’s handling of the high-stakes Iran strikes.

What she isn't doing is giving us actual facts about the story, going down below the surface, with more than satellite photos. It's not "propaganda" if it's questioning the government's public relations campaign. If she has real facts, she should share them with the public. Not attack the media. If she's upset about leaks coming from within her own department, that's HER problem, not the media's. The media is doing its job by asking questions, filling a hole that exists because the government is more interested in "c-y-a" than real facts.

 

[davideduardo]

So it's pretty obvious that Gabbard is under pressure from her boss or someone in the administration to find ways to attack the media:

You know, some of us are sick of "the media" and its incessant attacking of the current government. What has just happened in Iran and the peace, albeit as tenuous as it may be, are significant achievements and should be recognized. Similarly, the achievement of getting all but one of the NATO nations to commit to a 5% of GNP defense budget is something never done since NATO was founded... yet there is nearly nothing in the traditional press.

On that later subject, the NYT talks about NATO defense budgets "below the fold" (two pages down on the website) in the context of a criticism of the way the agreement was worded rather than in a recognition of something never even closely achieved since 1949!

What she isn't doing is giving us actual facts about the story, going down below the surface, with more than satellite photos. It's not "propaganda" if it's questioning the government's public relations campaign. If she has real facts, she should share them with the public. Not attack the media. If she's upset about leaks coming from within her own department, that's HER problem, not the media's.

Maybe if you agreed with the statement that the leaked data came from people who were not near the actual action and which came out well before "the smoke had cleared" over the site allowing for satellite photography and "other sources" to better picture what had been achieved.

The media is doing its job by asking questions, filling a hole that exists because the government is more interested in "c-y-a" than real facts.

Or maybe the press is editorializing by taking any negative or partial aspect of this story and emphasizing it.

Again, using the New York Times article on the NATO GNP allocations, they say:

"NATO leaders agreed on Wednesday to a goal of spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. But that doesn’t mean each member nation will actually spend that much.

The difference lies in a bit of mushy diplomatic language that lets the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, claim that he delivered on President Trump’s spending demand. The brief and unanimously approved communiqué that NATO issued after leaders wrapped up their annual summit says that “allies” — not “all allies” — had agreed to the 5 percent figure."

So, instead of recognizing a major international achievement that will reduce NATO's dependence on the U.S. for funding, the NYT leads its article with an argument about "word meaning" where it calls the terminology "mushy".

"Mushy" is an opinionated word in the maximum degree. Yet it is used in the opening paragraphs of the New York Times article. Let no good deed go unpunished.

 

[TheBigA]

You know, some of us are sick of "the media" and its incessant attacking of the current government.

Yes we know. They're just doing their job. That's why the founding fathers protected them with the first amendment. They knew it was tough. King George didn't like it when Ben Franklin and others reported stories that made him look bad.

Maybe if you agreed with the statement that the leaked data came from people who were not near the actual action and which came out well before "the smoke had cleared" over the site allowing for satellite photography and "other sources" to better picture what had been achieved.

However, in the days since, a lot of people who had actually been at those facilities when we had access have substantiated that reporting. The satellite photography only shows what's on the surface. The actual work was being done miles below the surface.

Or maybe the press is editorializing by taking any negative or partial aspect of this story and emphasizing it.

Or maybe the government is more interested in doing PR for the president than reporting facts. That's what happened to GW Bush with his weapons of mass destruction. We now know what the truth was there.

It's not the job of the media to di PR for the government. The government works for the people, not the president. They need to remember that.

 

[gr8oldies]

You know, some of us are sick of "the media" and its incessant attacking of the current government. What has just happened in Iran and the peace, albeit as tenuous as it may be, are significant achievements and should be recognized. Similarly, the achievement of getting all but one of the NATO nations to commit to a 5% of GNP defense budget is something never done since NATO was founded... yet there is nearly nothing in the traditional press.

On that later subject, the NYT talks about NATO defense budgets "below the fold" (two pages down on the website) in the context of a criticism of the way the agreement was worded rather than in a recognition of something never even closely achieved since 1949!

Maybe if you agreed with the statement that the leaked data came from people who were not near the actual action and which came out well before "the smoke had cleared" over the site allowing for satellite photography and "other sources" to better picture what had been achieved.

Or maybe the press is editorializing by taking any negative or partial aspect of this story and emphasizing it.

Again, using the New York Times article on the NATO GNP allocations, they say:

"NATO leaders agreed on Wednesday to a goal of spending 5 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. But that doesn’t mean each member nation will actually spend that much.

The difference lies in a bit of mushy diplomatic language that lets the NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, claim that he delivered on President Trump’s spending demand. The brief and unanimously approved communiqué that NATO issued after leaders wrapped up their annual summit says that “allies” — not “all allies” — had agreed to the 5 percent figure."

So, instead of recognizing a major international achievement that will reduce NATO's dependence on the U.S. for funding, the NYT leads its article with an argument about "word meaning" where it calls the terminology "mushy".

"Mushy" is an opinionated word in the maximum degree. Yet it is used in the opening paragraphs of the New York Times article. Let no good deed go unpunished.

Some of us are tired of the media sucking up to the current government.

 

[AbrahamJSimpson]

Incessant attacking? Is that what we’re calling questions based on other information? Expecting something called evidence?

We get it. Not slobbering on dear leader is bad. They are to report and not attack by pointing to holes, no pun intended, in the unsubstantiated ramblings of the supposed person in charge.

 

[tall_guy1]

Some of us are tired of the media sucking up to the current government.

If anything, they need to be more bold and thought provoking. Instead of just saying, "Oh, that statement wasn't very nice." They should say "This man represents everything that's wrong with our elected officials, our inequalities, our failings as society, ect."