Well Trump is anti truth and only wants propaganda. Why would the media love that?
-
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
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
Still have to be neutral. No one at home watching should ever know what a journalist thinks politically or who they are in favor of/vote for. That, along with attacks from Trump to the media created any and all distrust the last decade. We used to have a middle ground for decades.
How many journalists have done that, besides Fox News. Sure the opinion shows do that. Not the reporters.
Well we used to have an ecosystem where there was at least a modicum of objective reality. For example, the claim by Trump (and his administration) that he's going to reduce prescription drug prices by (insert any number between 500 and 1000 percent), which is mathematically not possible. Is a journalist (or an opinion host for that matter) "anti-Trump" if they point this out to the man or his spokespeople? If Trump repeats the claim that he won the popular vote in the last three elections and a reporter says "no, you lost the popular vote in both 2016 and 2020" is that reporter inherently anti-Trump?
If the issue is them daring to contradict Trump, then I suppose you could make the argument that they are indeed "anti-Trump," but is simply stating objective reality in and of itself anti-Trump? What about calling him out on the claim that Haitian immigrants were "eating the dogs, eating the cats?" What about explaining to him that "sir, you're confusing asylum seekers with people who have escaped from mental institutions?" Honestly, the list of claims made by the man and his administration that contradict objective reality is legion.
Does being "neutral" equal not questioning these things in an attempt to not rock the boat? Because it seems to me that CBS is not only trying to attract a pro-Trump audience, but also trying very hard not to anger a President who does not like to be called out on his patently obvious falsehoods.
I'm sorry but your previous rhetoric on this and other threads on this issue says otherwise. Either the commercial media is going to stand up to this president despite the threats he is making or it isn't. Thus far, commercial media companies have (mostly) fallen in line behind him, even when legal experts have stated publicly that the cases he is making against them are weak and without legal justification. Of course, media organizations aren't the only ones doing this. But media organizations are tasked with providing the public with truthful and accurate information about what is happening in the world around them, including in their own country. And that means standing up to a president who is determined to not be held accountable for his decisions by *anybody*.
No, it is commentary about the news. Even if some believe that conservatives are heathen mouth breathers, that distinction is clear. In fact, if one bothers to watch Fox News for a day, they will see that they have "news breaks" in the commentary shows, just like newscasts on conservative talk radio stations.
The era of direct format competition is gone, I believe. That applies to television as well as OTA radio except that terrestrial TV is show based rather than station based for the most part. The way to be different is to nudge in between several other outlets, taking something from each in the hopes of creating a solid constituency.
Compare this to the days when some major markets had three or four Top 40 / CHR stations.
How does that have anything to do with me?
Give examples where "the media" hasn't been truthful or accurate. The reason we know all the things he's doing is because we read about it in the media. How else would we know?
Who should pay for truthful information? The whole purpose for creating taxpayer funded public broadcasting was so people could get accurate news for free. The president decided that public broadcasting is biased, and he told the congress to defund it. They did. Nobody challenged him on it. Now what?
At one time, people were willing to pay for newspapers. Now that would be considered a pay wall. Paying for news is putting control in the hands of the people rather than corporations or the government. I would think you'd prefer that over the alternatives. Yes free would be better. But it costs money to do reporting.
Even for you, that's a remarkable bit of historical revisionism.
Go back to any, literally any, primary source from that era in the 1960s when the legislation creating CPB was passed and you'll see basically no references at all to "accurate news."
There was no national news operation at PBS at its outset, and what evolved into PBS Newshour only began its existence a few years after the creation of CPB with coverage of the Watergate hearings and commentary afterward. The earliest versions of MacNeil/Lehrer were basically interview shows.
Even NPR took a couple of decades to become the full-time news operation we recognize today.
The "whole purpose" of creating CPB and PBS was much more about educational and cultural programming at the start than it was about news.
But the purpose was to make the programming, whatever it was, available to all for free. From the Public Broadcasting Act:
They weren't specific about the programming, but that it be available to all citizens. No paywalls. No required subscription fees. That's my point.
When the president rescinded the funding, he didn't single out news. He defunded everything, regardless of how the money was used.
Even though the federal funding has been cut, the programming is still available to all citizens.
Last edited:
The perception of the audience. For crying out loud, come on here. The loyal FNC audience is not drawing a sharp line that what Hannity says isn’t news, just commentary. It is all one large entity to the audience.
Again…the audience is taking nearly every thing they say at face value.
Lol, sure. And none of those are remotely biased to align with the commentary.
Somehow who put more R&B into a format vs R&R feels just a tad bit different than how much one network endorses fascism over another.
To put a finer point on it, the name of the channel is FOX NEWS. People who lack the capacity for critical thinking believe it's news because that 's what the branding tells them it is.
The kicker is how they call out the “corporate media”. Not acknowledging that News Corp is their huge parent company.
OT-- there's a scene from the third-season Hart to Hart episode "Vintage Harts" from 1982 that illustrates this perfectly, IMO: Celeste (Carolyn Seymour) wants to try to exploit the American market with ersatz wine (passing off Hart-Cabri [the Harts' house wine] as Chateau St. Claire [a more expensive wine]), but Raymond (Michael Billington) questions her motivations, wherein Celeste defends her actions by saying they've already tapped South America and Canada...
Raymond: "I still think it's too risky to try and fool the domestic market."
Celeste: "We have no choice; we've already exhausted the South American and Canadian market. Look, if it worked in Brazil and Quebec, it'll work here; people don't really know the difference. They buy wine for the label, not for the taste; if they see Chateau St. Claire, they'll buy it, even if it's Hart-Cabri. Besides... it's already a fait accompli."
In essence, the same is done today with news and media as you say; they see News in the branding of FOX "News," so they tune in, in essence buying it for the label, only to not give a care about the actual taste (more commentary/talk than actual reporting-- in essence, televised talk radio).
In his defense, I'm going to say what he really meant was that the old drug price was 500 to 1000 percent higher than the new price he intended.
I do pay for one, and I made every effort to reduce what I pay so it's essentially what I used to pay with a reasonable increase for inflation, not the dramatic increase they try to justify by pointing out all the additional online stuff I don't care about or have time for.
Regardless of what would be made available with my subscription, yes, I do want to see other stuff for free.
As someone who worked closely with survivors and who even assisted in an effort to locate Martin Borman ( Martin Bormann - Wikipedia ) in Eastern Ecuador, I feel that I have a good, albeit second hand, knowledge of facism. As mentioned previously, my first real "girlfriend" had numbers tattooed on her forearm.
And from that knowledge, I find references to the current administration as "fascist" to be totally unrealistic. Trump is not Hitler and "The Art of the Deal" is not "Mein Kampf". I've read both; have you?
He wants to be. He may not be but that won’t stop him from trying.
For anyone who does read Hitler's "work" a follow-up should be this book https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Mein-Kampf-Socialism-Meditations/dp/0262533332 which says, "And yet the dominant critical assessment (in Germany and elsewhere) of the most dangerous book of the twentieth century is that it is boring, unoriginal, jargon-laden, badly written, embarrassingly rabid, and altogether ludicrous"