Subtract 0.1 of a point for the hideous grammatical error that I just discovered and now can't fix.
-
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
"Newsroom culture clash" at CBS News
- Thread starter Mark Roberts
- Start date
Meanwhile:
www.theguardian.com
Bari Weiss’s new CBS hires include ‘germ theory denialist’ doctor
Dr Mark Hyman, who claimed he reduced his biological age by 20 years, brought on as a contributor
That sounds like CBS News got pundits who act like Dr. Oz when he was doing the TV show prior to entering political office.Meanwhile:
Bari Weiss’s new CBS hires include ‘germ theory denialist’ doctor
Dr Mark Hyman, who claimed he reduced his biological age by 20 years, brought on as a contributor
Meanwhile:
Bari Weiss’s new CBS hires include ‘germ theory denialist’ doctor
Dr Mark Hyman, who claimed he reduced his biological age by 20 years, brought on as a contributor
So CBS is now becoming a quack network. I think it best to duck out of it while we still can.
The logic there was that, of the two, Harris was the poorest candidate.
What is unusual about a streaming company producing a variety of content so as to have something for every viewer?
In each case, to me it seems like the playing field is being leveled, not swung the other way.
Depends on the platform. In terms of talk radio, there is no level playing field. The FCC doesn't appear to mind.
But there is no restriction or limitation on liberal or progressive talk. The only point here is whether conservative talk stations give opportunities to liberals.
Obviously, the same should apply to television, since investor owned networks and station groups tend to be pulled towards programming that generates the most revenue and viewership.
That raises the question of why none of the OTA TV networks has created a conservative or more centrist version of The View? It seems that the market determines these things quite well, and the most popular shows, like (again) The View reflect what viewers want to be offered.
You wanna tell Bezos that? Because he said he made the decision for another reason:
Jeff Bezos defends decision to end Washington Post endorsements
After resignations and loss of subscribers, billionaire owner pens piece saying endorsements create ‘perception of bias’
There have always been conservative voices on The View.
The Talk on CBS was canceled in 2024, because it was the lowest rated show on the network.
There is no fairness doctrine for TV or radio. No requirement for fairness.
Last edited:
What do you call The Five on Fox News, David? That's five hours a week, just like The View. And what do you call Fox and Friends, David? That's more like 21 hours a week, FOUR TIMES the airtime of The View. You know, the one that takes live calls from our Commander-in-Chief and airs his ramblings unedited and uncensored. Have they ever taken a live call from Joe Biden, or Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg. How much time did they get before someone pushed the kill switch?
Why don't you compare the the combined cume of those two shows, all 26 hours, and compare it to The View's cume? Let's see how many eyeballs each network's getting on their Coffee Klatch programs.
Who's asking for equal time from Fox News, huh, David? Do you think Rupert has been jawboning his executives to give the other side equivalent time to expose the audience to another viewpoint? Possibly one based on actual facts? Or does your outrage only show up when someone you disagree with gets a sliver of the airtime pie?
BTW, how many liberal or progressive hosts get a sliver of the pie on conservative "hot talk" stations? I have not heard Thom Hartman or Stephanie Miller or anyone else who'd fit the definition getting a scintilla of airtime on those types of stations in a very long time.
Fox has one token liberal on the Five in Jessica Tarlov once or twice a week but she barely gets a word in, especially when Fox is in "lock up all the Democrats" mode
Jeff Bezos defends decision to end Washington Post endorsements
After resignations and loss of subscribers, billionaire owner pens piece saying endorsements create ‘perception of bias’
"Endorsements create a perception of bias."
And then he donates $1 million to the Trump inaugural fund and gives $40 million to the Trumps for the rights to the Melania movie.
Okay, so my pun was a bad one! However, the point I'm going to make now is very legitimate and very on topic. By hiring this "doctor" to be a commentator for CBS News, Mrs. Weiss is essentially making the statement that people who are not experts in a given field of study should have the same right to express their opinions on air publicly on an important subject (personal health) as experts (i.e. people who actually know the subject) do.
While all of us may have opinions and we may disagree sometimes with the experts, this, to my mind, goes a step farther and suggests that the opinions of people who know very little about personal health should have the same credibility as those who have a lot of knowledge on the subject. The problem is that if you actually try to do the things that this "doctor" recommends, your health will not improve. Oh, you may "feel" better (and that's a psychological thing) but it won't help your physical health.
Look! If the pills that this person (and Dr. Aahs in his former role) were offering actually worked, don't you think that scientists and other medical practitioners who actually studied the subject would be recommending them? To me, it all smells like grift or a fraud.
And I would argue that neither CBS nor any other news network should be giving this guy airtime. He will convince people who literally don't know better to start taking these pills and those pills won't help them at all and, in fact, may hinder them. And this is why news should be based on factually proven information! Sure, let this guy buy commercial airtime on the station if he wants but don't give him a place in a news commentator's chair to sell his "sugar pills" for free!
While all of us may have opinions and we may disagree sometimes with the experts, this, to my mind, goes a step farther and suggests that the opinions of people who know very little about personal health should have the same credibility as those who have a lot of knowledge on the subject. The problem is that if you actually try to do the things that this "doctor" recommends, your health will not improve. Oh, you may "feel" better (and that's a psychological thing) but it won't help your physical health.
Look! If the pills that this person (and Dr. Aahs in his former role) were offering actually worked, don't you think that scientists and other medical practitioners who actually studied the subject would be recommending them? To me, it all smells like grift or a fraud.
And I would argue that neither CBS nor any other news network should be giving this guy airtime. He will convince people who literally don't know better to start taking these pills and those pills won't help them at all and, in fact, may hinder them. And this is why news should be based on factually proven information! Sure, let this guy buy commercial airtime on the station if he wants but don't give him a place in a news commentator's chair to sell his "sugar pills" for free!
And this is political and not just journalistic malpractice, because these quacks align with the irresponsibility of the current Secretary of Health, RFK, Jr.
On the other hand, the president hasn't attacked Amazon at all, and hasn't sued the Washington Post. Unlike his first term.
A Brief List of the Times Donald Trump Tried to Punish Jeff Bezos
The White House may try to use coronavirus loans to pressure the USPS to raise prices on Amazon.
Seems like money well spent. This is what you have to do to survive as a business in this country.
Extortion is perfectly fine. That’s where we are.
They'd go under otherwise?
I specifically named OTA terrestrial networks as the subject.
Again, shows run on FCC licensed OTA stations is the subject. Fox and Friends is not on any licensed broadcast stations; The View is.
The combined cume for a week is roughly the same as any single day's cume. It is the same people, viewing regularly.
They are not running Fox News on OTA FCC licensed stations. While I think the whole meddling by the current FCC commissioner is absurd, again the FCC does not regulate cable programs. But the fact that our FCC Commissioner is dangerously clueless is a separate subject.
The Five has had a permanent liberal going to its beginning when Juan Williams was there... and did a very good job, BTW.
Again, the FCC does not regulate cable channels. So we are talking about OTA networks such as CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox, Univision and Telemundo. Both of the Spanish networks have made efforts to keep partisan comments out of newscasts, starting with the "retiring" of Jorge Ramos per the orders from Mexico City.
There have been some, but in recent decades they got no ratings. The closest we get are stations like KFI which has definitely an anti-establishment slant but is not conservative.
If they got ratings, they would be on stations. As Air America proved, liberal / progressive talk has the same problem as Alternative Rock: there are multiple and generally differently polarized subsets in the constituency.
Last edited:
That's correct, they do. We all have the same rights, regardless of our expertise.
Sean Hannity has absolutely no expertise in politics. He's never held office. Never studied the subject. But he's qualified to express his opinions on the radio. Every day. Whether he's right or not. A lot of people listen and believe what he says.
And that is the opinion of a competitor of the Murdoch family of papers, known for its views that we would call "liberal" in America (although the meaning of that word varies by country). So anything that fits whatever the Murdochs endorse is pretty automatically dismissed by the Scott Trust administrators, editors and publishers.Jeff Bezos defends decision to end Washington Post endorsements
After resignations and loss of subscribers, billionaire owner pens piece saying endorsements create ‘perception of bias’
"Endorsements create a perception of bias."
Newspapers have done endorsements since shortly after Gutenberg invented movable type. Long ago, most responsible papers segregated opinion onto a separate "Editorial Page" so that it was clear that it was just that: opinion.
The WaPo made a selection of "the less bad of two bad candidates" when they endorsed Trump. Their wording of the accompanying statement pretty much says exactly that but in slightly more diplomatic language.
If you look at Amazon's and Bezos' total contributions, they cover a pretty wide spectrum.
As to the movie, it just had the best box office of any documentary in a decade and will give great value to Amazon Plus streaming offerings. If a similar movie about Kamala Harris were to be proposed and research showed interest, I'll bet that would do even better if properly staged, written and produced.
I might add that a $1 million donation to the inauguration of an already elected President pales next to his $500 million dollar yacht which has about another $100 million in ancillary devices like 'copters and docks and supply chains.