-
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
A
AKLes
Guest
Is anyone surprised that a newspaper struggling with declining circulation:
Readership Institute | Readership | Montgomery Advertiser (AL)
Montgomery Advertiser (AL). Daily Circulation: 50763 ... which has reduced from levels above 40% from 1998-2000 to 22.6% in 2002 and YTD 19.2% in 2003. ...
www.readership.org/readership/papers/Montgomery%20Advertiser%20(AL).htm - 24k -
might come out in favor of something they think might stifle competition from radio and TV for advrtising dollars?
Readership Institute | Readership | Montgomery Advertiser (AL)
Montgomery Advertiser (AL). Daily Circulation: 50763 ... which has reduced from levels above 40% from 1998-2000 to 22.6% in 2002 and YTD 19.2% in 2003. ...
www.readership.org/readership/papers/Montgomery%20Advertiser%20(AL).htm - 24k -
might come out in favor of something they think might stifle competition from radio and TV for advrtising dollars?
Sure...that's why we had a FD in the first place..newpapers didn't want to lose their monopoly on the power to editorialize. I have to laugh at the "newspaper credibility is down, we must not have that!" mentality. This author longs for the day when allopinion and news was filtered through the NYT and Washington Post.
gr8oldies said:
Because if there's anything that successfully eclipses the credibility of professional journalism, it's the mono-sounding blather coming from the EIB Network.
A
AKLes
Guest
Nate Wesley said:Because if there's anything that successfully eclipses the credibility of professional journalism, it's the mono-sounding blather coming from the EIB Network.
"Professional journalism" was pronounced dead when The Fabled NYT published fables and plagarized tales as a matter of routine.
Meanwhile, the death of talk radio is loudly proclaimed by the near-zero audiences; disasterous fall-off in sponsorship and the simple fact that the world is now bathed in sunlight, 24/7, pole to pole.
Oh? Those things haven't happened?
Gawd forbid somebody might tell that to Chicken Little....it'd just kill him!
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
"Professional journalism" was pronounced dead when The Fabled NYT published fables and plagarized tales as a matter of routine.
That means "professional journalism" is a rather short-lived phenomena, considering that Bill Pulitzer invented it around the turn of the last century as a circulation gimmick. Back when Pulitzer and Hearst were battling for circulation in New York and other cities, each tried gimmicks to beat the other. That's when comics were introduced to newspapers, and when the half-tone printing process was put to increased use to print photographs on newspapers front pages.
Pulitzer decided that it might be a good circulation gimmick to flank Hearst's highly sensational and biased writing style with its opposite, calm and unbiased reporting. Pulitzer almost single-handedly created the entire idea of the reporter as "journalist". And it was done for no other significant reason than to sell more papers than Hearst, even though the introduction of the gimmick was surrounded by high-sounding rhetoric.
That means "professional journalism" is a rather short-lived phenomena, considering that Bill Pulitzer invented it around the turn of the last century as a circulation gimmick. Back when Pulitzer and Hearst were battling for circulation in New York and other cities, each tried gimmicks to beat the other. That's when comics were introduced to newspapers, and when the half-tone printing process was put to increased use to print photographs on newspapers front pages.
Pulitzer decided that it might be a good circulation gimmick to flank Hearst's highly sensational and biased writing style with its opposite, calm and unbiased reporting. Pulitzer almost single-handedly created the entire idea of the reporter as "journalist". And it was done for no other significant reason than to sell more papers than Hearst, even though the introduction of the gimmick was surrounded by high-sounding rhetoric.
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
thats very interesting, I'm going to look into that!
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
I'm going to look into that!
Just keep in mind the fact that most records regarding "professional" journalism are written by "professional" journalists. Don't expect to find many accounts of what I said written by "professional" journalists.
Just keep in mind the fact that most records regarding "professional" journalism are written by "professional" journalists. Don't expect to find many accounts of what I said written by "professional" journalists.
There willl always be a first amendment and there will always be good journalists. To wit I commend to you the words of Mr. Pulitzer himself:
In May 1904, writing in The North American Review in support of his proposal for the founding of a school of journalism, Pulitzer summarized his credo: "Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations."
In May 1904, writing in The North American Review in support of his proposal for the founding of a school of journalism, Pulitzer summarized his credo: "Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself. The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations."
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
To wit I commend to you the words of Mr. Pulitzer himself:
Old Bill sure knew how to sugar coat it, didn't he? I mean, could he dish out the BS and make it sound genuine or what?
I seem to recall someone in this thread said that the introduction of his new circulation gimmick was "surrounded by high-sounding rhetoric". Come to think of it, I was the one who said it! And we can all thank Mr. justareporter for providing an example of that high sounding rhetoric.
Old Bill sure knew how to sugar coat it, didn't he? I mean, could he dish out the BS and make it sound genuine or what?
I seem to recall someone in this thread said that the introduction of his new circulation gimmick was "surrounded by high-sounding rhetoric". Come to think of it, I was the one who said it! And we can all thank Mr. justareporter for providing an example of that high sounding rhetoric.
Actually, us working journalists have a slightly different view...but Mr. so-called "Radio-Realist" wouldn't understand that.
And I am sure he will have some brilliantly composed retort. Facts will NOT necessarily enter into the response, but that will not be important to him (or her as I am not sure, nor do I actually care.)
And I am sure he will have some brilliantly composed retort. Facts will NOT necessarily enter into the response, but that will not be important to him (or her as I am not sure, nor do I actually care.)
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Actually, us working journalists have a slightly different view...
Actually, a real working journalist would have said "We working journalists have a slightly different view".
If someone were to point out that most government bureaucrats are self-serving paper-pushers, most government bureaucrats claim to have a slightly different view.
If someone were to point out that most lawyers were ambulance-chasing shysters, most lawyers would have a slightly different view.
So tell us, were you around in 1904? Did you now Bill Pulitzer personally? Did he ever invite you to his house?
And who told you that journalism was a "noble profession"? The journalism professors at your college who dedicated their careers to maintaining their careers?
One of the reasons why talk radio is so important is that it provides an alternate point of view. Even the kings of the Middle Ages understood the need to have a jester around to keep them honest. As long as there are so many pompous, full-of-themselves "journalists" distorting the news because in their own minds they know better than the rest of us, we need talk radio hosts to point out that the emperor truly is naked.
And any day when America returns to trying to rely on only professional journalists for the truth will be a dark day indeed.
And I am sure he will have some brilliantly composed retort. Facts will NOT necessarily enter into the response,
The accuracy of your prediction only proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But, I'll make you an offer. As soon as you present an actual fact that actually proves something, then so will I. In the meantime, here's a fact for you. Just like your quote from Pulitzer, it proves nothing. But it is a fact. Roxanne Pulitzer was a major babe!
Actually, a real working journalist would have said "We working journalists have a slightly different view".
If someone were to point out that most government bureaucrats are self-serving paper-pushers, most government bureaucrats claim to have a slightly different view.
If someone were to point out that most lawyers were ambulance-chasing shysters, most lawyers would have a slightly different view.
So tell us, were you around in 1904? Did you now Bill Pulitzer personally? Did he ever invite you to his house?
And who told you that journalism was a "noble profession"? The journalism professors at your college who dedicated their careers to maintaining their careers?
One of the reasons why talk radio is so important is that it provides an alternate point of view. Even the kings of the Middle Ages understood the need to have a jester around to keep them honest. As long as there are so many pompous, full-of-themselves "journalists" distorting the news because in their own minds they know better than the rest of us, we need talk radio hosts to point out that the emperor truly is naked.
And any day when America returns to trying to rely on only professional journalists for the truth will be a dark day indeed.
And I am sure he will have some brilliantly composed retort. Facts will NOT necessarily enter into the response,
The accuracy of your prediction only proves that even a broken clock is right twice a day. But, I'll make you an offer. As soon as you present an actual fact that actually proves something, then so will I. In the meantime, here's a fact for you. Just like your quote from Pulitzer, it proves nothing. But it is a fact. Roxanne Pulitzer was a major babe!
E
evnlee
Guest
Radio_Realist said:
touche.
my many experiences with 'reporters and journalists' are in kind with my (few) experiences with 'scientologists'. While 'scientologists' are among themselves, they are convinced that they operate on a higher plane, while the rest of us just shrug and roll our eyes. But the difference is most of them dont want you to know they are 'scientologists', unless they are close enough to you to try to brainwash you otherwise.
'Journalists' actually believe they can be 'objective', but the many polls and research shows the majority of the general public does not trust or believe them. To truly be 'objective' defies human nature. The difference is that they WANT you to know they are a 'reporter', unlike the scientologists.
Good reporters are objective. It is difficult but many do it well. As for polls about not trusting journalists....everyone wants to shoot the messenger. Good ole Spiro Agnew didn't like us either.
Remind me why I care what most people think. Actually don't remind me. I don't.
Remind me why I care what most people think. Actually don't remind me. I don't.
R
Radio_Realist
Guest
Good reporters are objective.
And objective reporters are rare. Extremely rare. What's worse, no matter how objective a reporter might be in writing a story, editors can destroy that objectivity in an instant. All a broadcast editor has to do is snip a few seconds from an objective story to slant it one way or another.
The point is that there is no agency or power in this nation capable of objectively judging objectivity, especially the government. There is no collection of government bureaucrats capable of determining whether or not any radio station or radio talk host or radio newscaster or radio news service is "fair" or not. That is simply a total impossibility. Only the listening public, acting collectively, has any hope of filtering the truth out of the lies, half-truths, and deceptions broadcast by the media.
That's why no new implementation of any sort of "fairness" doctrine, no matter how it's written or implemented, would be anything other than a total disaster for this nation.
And objective reporters are rare. Extremely rare. What's worse, no matter how objective a reporter might be in writing a story, editors can destroy that objectivity in an instant. All a broadcast editor has to do is snip a few seconds from an objective story to slant it one way or another.
The point is that there is no agency or power in this nation capable of objectively judging objectivity, especially the government. There is no collection of government bureaucrats capable of determining whether or not any radio station or radio talk host or radio newscaster or radio news service is "fair" or not. That is simply a total impossibility. Only the listening public, acting collectively, has any hope of filtering the truth out of the lies, half-truths, and deceptions broadcast by the media.
That's why no new implementation of any sort of "fairness" doctrine, no matter how it's written or implemented, would be anything other than a total disaster for this nation.
Would critics bristle if "fairness doctrine" was replaced with "balance doctrine" requiring broadcasters to provide an equal mixture of so-called "liberal" and "conservative" views. Okay, I know the slippery slope in trying to define liberal vs. conservative vs. "populist" but there must be a way to do this other then just tossing it in the air and saying, "the marketplace" will decide. We all deserve much better then that.
It wouldn't be any easier to legislate. You literally would still have to program with a stopwatch and calculator. What views are really "liberal" and "conservative"? There are people who think the Democratic party is on the far right and the Republicans are on the extreme right and vice versa. Where do you fit libertarianism in. Just doesn't work. And no matter how you define it, people will make their own choice, if not on the radio, the internet or satellite.
Even in these hyper charged times I am not sure a stop watch and calculator would be necessary. My own personal view is that some level of balance would go a long way.
T
Those RRRRs
Guest
Any elected representative who is acvocating the fairness doctrine is attempting to censor free speech and should be impeached. Period.
I remember radio in the days of the Fairness Doctrine. There was no stopwatch and no calculator. There were talk radio stations and most of them had more local content than the average talk radio station does today. The most change you would see is a company that owns 7 or 8 stations putting liberal talk on its lowest-rung AM property, probably when the conservative talker moves to FM. It's not going to be the end of the world (or of Rush) if it passes. Calm down. Fairness won't can Rush or any other big-name syndicated conservative hosts. If however, it terminates the career of a fourth-string Rush wannabe who adopted the conservative line to get a gig, well, that would be a nice fringe benefit, not because the fourth-stringer is conservative, but because he or she lacks talent or originality.
- Status