I’ll say this. Does anyone ever think if national news outlets actually presented both sides and weren’t so ratings driven, we wouldn’t be in the position the world is now?
-
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
“Varied Ideological Perspectives”: a new goal promised for CBS under Skydance
- Thread starter only1moore
- Start date
If you want a stronger party, you have to be visible all the time just like President Trump is now
People can blame the "media" but truth be told, commercial forces drive the media too. That's why in theory you'd want non-commercial alternatives. If you believe even the "liberal" media isn't influenced by corporatism and who buys the advertising (and not in a conspiratorial way) then you're not paying attention. For that matter, a story being important isn't a guarantee most people care about it or have the time to consume it. And you can't present the content without paying for it, so that's the system we have. If people demanded quality reporting and were willing to pay for it, there'd be a different media.
Right now, we're seeing a lot of people who just want to believe what they want to, and hear only what affirms their views, and with AI and the juggernaut of social media, that's only gotten worse.
Right now, we're seeing a lot of people who just want to believe what they want to, and hear only what affirms their views, and with AI and the juggernaut of social media, that's only gotten worse.
Thank you.
With what?
The experience I was relating was previous to digital editing, but I'm still not clear on your point. Let's look at the entire chain of comments.
I said this and you replied:
So then I replied to that and you replied to me:
\\And that gets us here.
So what is it that you're not agreeing with?
The first words of the sixth line in the quote you replied to are "Near the end of our conversation." So, clearly not.
Let's set aside "ratings-driven" and go back to the very beginning of the Trump administration, first term. The inauguration.
The White House's initial estimate of the turnout to see the inauguration was 720,000. That was a number that squared roughly with D.C. authorities' estimates, and it was reported.
White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer within hours upped that to "the largest audience to witness any inauguration, period."
News outlets then presented Spicer's claim, along with data from other sources involved in transportation, access and crowd control, and reported that the original estimate of 720,000 appeared accurate.
The Trump White House and right-wing media then claimed mainstream media was dishonest and out to get the president.
The mainstream media quite literally reported both sides here. The White House wanted only its side reported, no questions.
The moral of the story is "The press doesn't cover both sides" is quite often used by one or the other side of a story where in fact, both sides were covered, which exposed one side as somewhere on the scale between mistaken and attempting to mislead or misinform the public.
‘South Park’ Season 27 premiere: Show skewers Trump and Paramount in fiery return | CNN https://share.google/xIqgwGpoF9HL62FEu South Park skewered this so much that the Trump administration responded
You are over-emphasizing the importance and influence that the United States has "in the position the world is now". And CNN, MSNBC and Fox News have little or nothing to do with that.
You don't have to skewer this administration very hard to get a response. Failing to fawn will generally do it.
That said, South Park went farther than I thought even they would.
So the deal met FCC approval per Dylan Byers of Puck.
I can't help but continue to think that this is teeing up the inevitable sale of CBS to Nexstar. All the stuff David Ellison agreed to are things Perry Sook would easily agree to. It's also not a secret Nexstar has yearned for CBS and really wants the ownership cap done away with.
I can't help but continue to think that this is teeing up the inevitable sale of CBS to Nexstar. All the stuff David Ellison agreed to are things Perry Sook would easily agree to. It's also not a secret Nexstar has yearned for CBS and really wants the ownership cap done away with.
They ditched Garison as Trump and really took the gloves off. Usually these animated comedies don't get that kind of attention--South Park his first term, Family Guy did an episode, The Simpsons did a few online skits. But all those were pretty innocuous in comparison.
I think this has been the story all along regardless of the time one lives in. When I was younger and my father was alive, he was always complaining to me about how Martin Luther King was a Communist sympathizer; and how a kabul of left-wing wealthy people were trying to get the people of the U.S. to live in worse conditions than he was living now. (He was also a supporter of Joe McCarthy and his favorite living Senator at the time of his death was Jesse Helms.)
I say all this because he often read to me from newspaper editorials supporting his viewpoints and books that did likewise. And while I began questioning the logic of some of his beliefs while he lived, it wasn't until after his death that I realized that the logic he was using was really more like a fun house mirror distortion of reality than reality itself.
The point I'm making here is that people have believed what they have wanted to believe for a long time regardless of the truth or lack thereof surrounding those beliefs. The only thing that's different now is that through the use of modern technology, it is easier for people to find others who share their beliefs than it has ever been. And that makes it so much harder for factual information to ever get through.
Plus they're now using the government to force their views on the media, and those who don't share those beliefs.
I go back in "talk radio" to the later 60's when one of my Quito stations, Ecos de la Montaña, 10 kw on 660, ran soap operas, sports, news and talk shows.
In that case, about 60 years ago, we had several other competitors in the same format category. And we were in a country where there was a constant turnover of political parties, often associated with one leader. And there were numerous parties, most of which got some seats in the legislature branches. So each station would follow closely one of the several leading coalitions, knowing that those associations were often laden with as many differences as points of agreement.
So, over half a century ago, I saw the same thing as today: people like to listen to voices that reflect the main core values they have. Nothing new.
(And I saw that in talk formats in places ranging from the U.S. to Puerto Rico to the Dominican Republic, Perú, Argentina and Panamá among others. Again, nothing new.)
Just announced: FCC approves Paramount merger
www.theguardian.com
So now we all know what it takes to get government approval.
US regulators approve $8.4bn Paramount-Skydance merger
FCC approval of deal comes after Paramount paid $16m to settle Trump lawsuit over 60 Minutes interview
So now we all know what it takes to get government approval.
That assumes the marketplace is the only factor.
Once again, a reminder of the topic of this thread: One media group has to make promises that other groups don't.
From the New York Times:
That is...Orwellian.
You could almost---almost---make a case with a straight face that the FCC would have to extract a promise of unbiased journalism to approve a merger involving a company that has never had its fitness as a licensee challenged on those grounds, but to require a promise that the company would not attempt to identify or correct real-world problems that affect a significant percentage of its workforce (those who are not straight white men) is authoritarian, obscene and anti-American.
That is...Orwellian.
You could almost---almost---make a case with a straight face that the FCC would have to extract a promise of unbiased journalism to approve a merger involving a company that has never had its fitness as a licensee challenged on those grounds, but to require a promise that the company would not attempt to identify or correct real-world problems that affect a significant percentage of its workforce (those who are not straight white men) is authoritarian, obscene and anti-American.
Is the party stronger though or just living off one person.
It's the worst of all worlds: a rich trust fund kid in David Ellison (who would be nothing if not for his dad's Oracle money) totally, and willfully, shredding whatever remaining credibility and viewability CBS News had left, a network he never wanted in the first place and will jettison as soon as he can. All this destruction just to exploit IP from a movie studio and little more.
Brendan Carr's mendacity and treacherousness at the FCC is making John Doerfer and Richard Mack look like Boy Scouts by comparison.