• 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

CBS Evening News Anchor

What I heard on NPR this morning is that the new anchor is going to drink.

I'm not sure whether this is real or just a joke because it was "Wait! Wait!", but the response from Jack Daniel's was that they didn't want to be connected with this.
 
Deus Ex Machiato said:
That's not a thing where a responsible broadcaster would be able to say "well, this person says it was all fake" and present it as a situation where "both sides" are equally valid.
Click to expand...

You're right. The real debate now in broadcasting companies is should we even play in this game at all. When Fox Broadcasting was started in the 80s, that was part of the discussion. Should they have a network news division like the other three networks. They opted against it. That was almost 40 years ago. I imagine if CBS News was starting from scratch, the way Fox did, it wouldn't do network news the way they do it now. Given that these companies are now being run by people who don't have memories of Cronkite and Murrow, they're going to take news in a very different direction. It will be more like that social media stuff you see, and less like Cronkite.
 
TheBigA said:
Even if CBS News is somehow successful in reaching a younger audience, it won't show up in Nielsen ratings, because for the most part, that audience won't see the content on a broadcast station. Therefore, they won't be measured in traditional ratings.
Click to expand...
Do any of the streaming platforms (Paramount+, Netflix, Peacock, Max) encode for PPM the way broadcast/cable does?
 
vw86 said:
Do any of the streaming platforms (Paramount+, Netflix, Peacock, Max) encode for PPM the way broadcast/cable does?
Click to expand...

Nielsen does streaming ratings, but it's not included with broadcasting ratings. They use different metrics.

But as I said, Weiss seems to be wanting her videos to be "shared" by users on social media. Those sharing statistics are mainly known by the content owner.
 
TheBigA said:
Peeling away the Fox News audience isn't going to help CBS News. The Fox News audience is over 60. So is the CBS News audience. What they have to do at CBS News is find a younger audience. The problem is that young people generally don't watch real-time linear TV. What I'm reading in the Bari Weiss interviews is she's aiming to create "viral" content that will attract those who mainly get their news from YouTube and other online sources. It's a very different thing. It doesn't come from sitting at a desk in a NY studio and telling people what happened.

I get it. You see it as ideological. It's more than that. Even if CBS News is somehow successful in reaching a younger audience, it won't show up in Nielsen ratings, because for the most part, that audience won't see the content on a broadcast station. Therefore, they won't be measured in traditional ratings.
Click to expand...
The news I want is the truth. Don’t spin it or put opinion on it. Just give me the facts.
 
TheBigA said:
CBS News did a 13 minute interview with the president this week. They were told "If it's not out in full, we'll sue your ass off."

www.yahoo.com

Karoline Leavitt Reportedly Threatened CBS Anchor Tony Dokoupil to Not Edit Trump Interview: ‘We’ll Sue Your Ass Off’

Karoline Leavitt threatened Tony Dokoupil moments after he wrapped up his interview with Donald Trump, The New York Times reported
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...
CBS these days wants to have a positive relationship with the president, so they will comply to most of these things.
 
tall_guy1 said:
That's what it feels like more than anything. I think people need an outlet that is distant from both parties. Whether this will be it remains to be seen.
Click to expand...
Try “News Nation”. However, if their new anchor Katie Pavlich’s interview with the president Tuesday night lets him spew the untrue talking points without challenge, I will be disappointed.
 
TheBigA said:
You may have to pay for it, rather than get it free from ad-supported media.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the population votes in elections for political persons and ballot propositions based on what they know (or think they know) about a given person or issue. If the only way to get truthful, factually accurate information is if one pays for that information upfront, you can bet that a whole lot more people will be voting in the future than are voting now on people and issues on which they have no access to truthful and factually accurate information because it is behind a pay wall. One of the U.S. founding Fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson but I may well be wrong) once said that (and I'm paraphraising) if you expect to hold on to a democratic republic when citizens of that republic do not have true and accurate facts before entering the voting booth, you are seeking something that has never been, is not now, and will never be.

This is why I'm so concerned about some of @The BigA's responses on this thread. The idea that saving current media by turning it into a mouthpiece for the current federal Administration without fact-checking his statements and criticizing his decisions (such as invading another country) will pull us away from the philosophical thinking expressed by the founders of this nation, especially with regard to the separation of political power and the role of the citizenship.

Or, so it seems to me, (to copy an ending I've seen from another poster.)...
 
ted chittenden said:
Keep in mind that the population votes in elections for political persons and ballot propositions based on what they know (or think they know) about a given person or issue. If the only way to get truthful, factually accurate information is if one pays for that information upfront, you can bet that a whole lot more people will be voting in the future than are voting now on people and issues on which they have no access to truthful and factually accurate information because it is behind a pay wall. One of the U.S. founding Fathers (I think it was Thomas Jefferson but I may well be wrong) once said that (and I'm paraphraising) if you expect to hold on to a democratic republic when citizens of that republic do not have true and accurate facts before entering the voting booth, you are seeking something that has never been, is not now, and will never be.

This is why I'm so concerned about some of @The BigA's responses on this thread. The idea that saving current media by turning it into a mouthpiece for the current federal Administration without fact-checking his statements and criticizing his decisions (such as invading another country) will pull us away from the philosophical thinking expressed by the founders of this nation, especially with regard to the separation of political power and the role of the citizenship.

Or, so it seems to me, (to copy an ending I've seen from another poster.)...
Click to expand...
The general voting public treats voting like a popularity contest. They don’t care about the issues as long as it sounds good.
 
ted chittenden said:
This is why I'm so concerned about some of @The BigA's responses on this thread.
Click to expand...

At no time have I ever said that the media should be turned into a "mouthpiece for the current federal administration." I'm pretty insulted that you'd say such a thing. The media HAS fact-checked the president, and he has in turn attacked them for it. The media HAS criticized him and his decisions pretty continuously. In return, the president has sued media companies for millions of dollars and his FCC is currently investigating all of them. The president is threatening to revoke the licenses of network owned stations, and his FCC is threatening the licenses of public broadcasting stations. What more can the media do, when the president and his government control the licenses under which they operate? Don't you understand this?

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't mis-represent my views.
 
TheBigA said:
Peeling away the Fox News audience isn't going to help CBS News. The Fox News audience is over 60. So is the CBS News audience. What they have to do at CBS News is find a younger audience. The problem is that young people generally don't watch real-time linear TV.
Click to expand...
those young incels and Charlie Kirk worshippers aren't watching FNC?
 
tall_guy1 said:
The media gets in trouble because the public doesn't trust it. Some people see (correctly or incorrectly) ties to the DNC (some Hillary emails showed direct communication back then), while some media like CBS is perceived as having ties to the current administration.
Click to expand...
People wouldn’t think that way if we had more neutral reporting instead of objective.
 


Back
Top Bottom