• 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

Broadcast network coverage of Iran bombing

davideduardo said:
It's people like you who have made me decide to close WorldRadioHistory. You probably don't care, so....
Click to expand...

If you say all the people who use WorldRadioHistory belong to a political party, then I don't care. But I use it every week

davideduardo said:
The majority of mainstream journalists are Democrats or sympathize most with the tenets and standards of that party. Period.
Click to expand...

You have no facts for that. None. We've gone over this many times. I'm not "accusing you of lying." There is no database of reporter's politics.

davideduardo said:
It does not matter how reporters got their jobs.
Click to expand...

It does if you want to say they're all members of a political party. That's what you said, and you're wrong.
 
TheBigA said:
If you say all the people who use WorldRadioHistory belong to a political party, then I don't care. But I use it every week
Click to expand...
Not for long, and you are part of the main reason I want out of all things radio now.
 
Don CT said:
Opposing viewpoints?
Click to expand...
No, open insults. He has called me a Liar and in a deleted post, told me I was wrong about the format of a station I was in charge of programming for, in ALL CAPS.
 
TheBigA said:
You're LYING again. This is what caused Scott Fybush to quit. Stop making up crap. You're supposed to be a moderator.

Reporters don't get their jobs because of who they voted for. They're protected by the first amendment no matter whose side they take.
Click to expand...
I may have mentioned the TV News Director I worked with in a small TV station in Indiana. I had no idea who he voted for. He's long retired and I'm still in touch with him on Facebook. Still don't know how he votes. I can't imagine him even asking an applicant how they voted.
 
gr8oldies said:
I may have mentioned the TV News Director I worked with in a small TV station in Indiana. I had no idea who he voted for. He's long retired and I'm still in touch with him on Facebook. Still don't know how he votes. I can't imagine him even asking an applicant how they voted.
Click to expand...
I was specifically talking about "national" media, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and print that is quasi-national like WaPo and the NYT. Or, if anyone looks anymore, Time and Newsweek. I really can't speak for the Record-Eagle or the Desert Sun.

However, before his passing, my step-brother and I discussed this. He was editor and publisher of a large and reputable daily paper, and he knew that it was a constant chore for the section editors and staff to make sure that flavoring did not impact news stories. He felt that the last time that newsrooms had somewhat of a balance between left and right was in the Reagan era. And that is four decades ago!
 
davideduardo said:
I was specifically talking about "national" media, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and print that is quasi-national like WaPo and the NYT. Or, if anyone looks anymore, Time and Newsweek. I really can't speak for the Record-Eagle or the Desert Sun.

However, before his passing, my step-brother and I discussed this. He was editor and publisher of a large and reputable daily paper, and he knew that it was a constant chore for the section editors and staff to make sure that flavoring did not impact news stories. He felt that the last time that newsrooms had somewhat of a balance between left and right was in the Reagan era. And that is four decades ago!
Click to expand...
It’s hard to have unbiased news when the news they are reporting on is so unbiased. Look at Washington. It’s so deeply partisan there is no way to report it it neutral
 
Don CT said:
It’s hard to have unbiased news when the news they are reporting on is so unbiased. Look at Washington. It’s so deeply partisan there is no way to report it it neutral
Click to expand...
As you know, I frequently bring up the many years I lived in Latin America and the even more years where I worked much of my time there. Even in countries with five or six major political parties, journalists in the major media went out of their way to be neutral and they succeeded. The absence of "flavored" words in straight news stories and complete coverage of the good and the bad is normal.

Even in nations where there were tanks rolling down the streets, most journalists tried to be impartial. In my case, impartiality and the reporting of all the news got my newspaper "partner" killed and I was removed from a country at gunpoint, losing a dozen radio stations. But, like everyone I knew when I was with the Interamerican Association of Broadcasters (AIR) we worked very hard to make our stations as unbiased as possible.

If we could do it with tanks and rifles threatening us, I don't see why the bureaucrats in DC should have any trouble.
 
davideduardo said:
I was specifically talking about "national" media, such as CBS, NBC, ABC, and print that is quasi-national like WaPo and the NYT. Or, if anyone looks anymore, Time and Newsweek. I really can't speak for the Record-Eagle or the Desert Sun.

However, before his passing, my step-brother and I discussed this. He was editor and publisher of a large and reputable daily paper, and he knew that it was a constant chore for the section editors and staff to make sure that flavoring did not impact news stories. He felt that the last time that newsrooms had somewhat of a balance between left and right was in the Reagan era. And that is four decades ago!
Click to expand...
I think the main problem is sensationalism at least for cable news. CNN under Zaslav has tried to be "impartial" by bringing on "reactionaries" like Scott Jennings and Bill Maher (very right wing Democrat.) All it did is alienate a lot of their viewers as CNN wants their broadcast to be a "spectacle" to get viewers. Stuff like News Nation and maybe PBS do a good job of being impartial without pouring gasoline on a fire.
 
Don CT said:
It’s hard to have unbiased news when the news they are reporting on is so unbiased. Look at Washington. It’s so deeply partisan there is no way to report it it neutral
Click to expand...

You and I may have had our disagreements, Don, but I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I only wish there was a way to fix it, but I fear the polarization of our nation is making that an impossible task. There are so many things that have gone wrong leading up to this ... much of it related to social media, which not only spreads non-factual information like a computer virus, but lacks the ability to control it. Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has resulted in people gravitating to whatever content matches their own biases and POVs, and that is leading to a situation where not only is it difficult to convince people otherwise, we now have a government that tries to prevent that.

I think I'm glad that I am approaching 70 years of age. I may not have many more years to go, and if things get to a point where I am in danger of being permanently silenced, it will not be a tremendous loss. But I do not know how a society can survive in the current climate without both sides trying to silence the other.

Our media should be trying harder to report when what our government says is a lie, but even if they were not punished for doing so, what guarantees do we have that anyone's mind would be changed?
 
K.M. Richards said:
You and I may have had our disagreements, Don, but I wholeheartedly agree with that.

I only wish there was a way to fix it, but I fear the polarization of our nation is making that an impossible task. There are so many things that have gone wrong leading up to this ... much of it related to social media, which not only spreads non-factual information like a computer virus, but lacks the ability to control it. Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has resulted in people gravitating to whatever content matches their own biases and POVs, and that is leading to a situation where not only is it difficult to convince people otherwise, we now have a government that tries to prevent that.

I think I'm glad that I am approaching 70 years of age. I may not have many more years to go, and if things get to a point where I am in danger of being permanently silenced, it will not be a tremendous loss. But I do not know how a society can survive in the current climate without both sides trying to silence the other.

Our media should be trying harder to report when what our government says is a lie, but even if they were not punished for doing so, what guarantees do we have that anyone's mind would be changed?
Click to expand...
We need more voices like Bernie now more than ever, who isn't swayed by the way the wind blows but true to his convictions. The problem with media outlets is they are beholden to shareholders and try to tread too "lightly." It seems like there's a lot of inauthentic people in journalism too...Megan Kelly would still be on the left leaning Today show masquerading as "one of them" if not for the whole "black face" comment in 2018. Also, Kaitlan Collins from CNN worked for Tucker Carlson before her tenure and even parroted right wing talking points on Fox News before she was hired on a segment (something about Soros and Hillary.)
 
tall_guy1 said:
We need more voices like Bernie now more than ever, who isn't swayed by the way the wind blows but true to his convictions. The problem with media outlets is they are beholden to shareholders and try to tread too "lightly." It seems like there's a lot of inauthentic people in journalism too...Megan Kelly would still be on the left leaning Today show masquerading as "one of them" if not for the whole "black face" comment in 2018. Also, Kaitlan Collins from CNN worked for Tucker Carlson before her tenure and even parroted right wing talking points on Fox News before she was hired on a segment (something about Soros and Hillary.)
Click to expand...
Look at John Roberts. I always thought he was impartial. Listen to him on Fox News. He has no signs of being impartial.
 
davideduardo said:
No, open insults.
Click to expand...

There's nothing I've said that was meant to be insulting. If you feel insulted, I'm sorry. That's not my intent. To me, it's just a discussion about issues.
davideduardo said:
He felt that the last time that newsrooms had somewhat of a balance between left and right was in the Reagan era. And that is four decades ago!
Click to expand...

Now I think I see where you're getting this. At that time, I doubt any talk show hosts would ever say "Democrats hate America." But that's what Mark Levin says. The media has become very polarized and very directional. It's how social media works. You build a fan base by saying and doing outrageous stuff. The president is perfect for that. Fox News has learned how to capitalize on that. They make zero attempt at being balanced. Those days are long gone. When they tried to, during the 2020 election, it led to a big internal fight that ended up being part of the Dominion lawsuit.

Let's talk about balance in newsrooms. Do you think the New York Post is balanced? Do you think that's a concern of theirs? They know who their audience is, and they program to them the way a radio station programs to its target demo. Same with Fox News. They've created a successful brand than translates to everything they do, including radio. Talk stations won't carry TOH news from anyone else.

The first amendment doesn't say there has to be any balance. All it says is that government can't abridge the freedom of the press. It doesn't specify what kind of press, it doesn't care where the money comes from, and it doesn't care if it angers the president. He has his rights too. But they stop where the rights of the press begins. The communications act doesn't require balance. The FCC tried to force a "fairness doctrine," and it was dropped for first amendment reasons. So the government can't require fairness or balance. That happened during Reagan. So yes, your step-brother is probably right.
 
Last edited:
My old boss in Houston who is no longer with us made a statement regarding he polarization of politics he was seeing a quarter of a century ago. He said there will come a day freedom of speech is so out of hand we will accept supression of fredom of speech from our government. He added he hoped that what he had seen, swings in social values, would swing back before it comes to that. The youth I talk to (not enough to make a determination) seem to be very honest and seeking the same from those they are dealing with. They seem pretty conservative in that they just want to build their lives with a government that encourages it versus burdens the ones that do. I don't know what that says from a political end but I see that as a positive, saying at least those I meet are that way.
 


Back
Top Bottom