CBS Anchor Shuffling

[NewsVet]

Re: Experts

>
> What you are saying amounts to: "I'm an expert and you're
> not; I know what I'm talking about and you don't; therefore
> you must provide proof but I don't have to because I am an
> expert." Sorry, such posts don't persuade me. We live in
> an empirical age and appeals to authority (especially one's
> own) are not valid.
>
> I don't take anyone's word for anything.

What nonsense! Bob works there and you don't. I worked there, no longer do, and can testify that Bob knows what he's talking about and "merriamwebster" does not. Period.

 

[JohnnyMorganWXJX]

Re: Experts

> What you are saying amounts to: "I'm an expert and you're
> not; I know what I'm talking about and you don't; therefore
> you must provide proof but I don't have to because I am an
> expert." Sorry, such posts don't persuade me. We live in
> an empirical age and appeals to authority (especially one's
> own) are not valid.

I see. And what empirical evidence have you offered? Other than your conclusions that CBS News on-air voices are newsreaders, not anchors. I have yet to see any numbers, or data.

 

[BinaryCodex]

Re: The founding fathers did not want Kings

It's not proof of some cabal.
>

Or, in his case, "ca-BULL".

 

[ibezdechi]

Re: The founding fathers did not want Kings

MerriamWebster, your unmarked black helicopter is waiting for you outside....


> The Brits and the Commonwealth Countries omit the honorific
> when addressing the Prime Minister and Cabinet members.
>
> However, the point is CBS' practice of using the honorific
> in subsequent reference for the incumbent president - and
> only in the incumbent president. The AP no longer uses the
> honorific at all. The New York Times uses it for everybody.
> Only CBS continues this practice to elevate the executive -
> a form of subliminal propaganda.
>
> This goes on for a while and an administration will start to
> claim unlimited powers and people will buy it -- oh, wait!
> That's already happened. Right. Replace the Republic with
> an Empire. It worked so well for Rome. Napoleonic France.
> Weimar Germany.
>

 

[DrBear]

Re: "CBS Radio Network"

Let's see...where do I start to attack this?

This forces you to be come a
> company flack. Maybe someday you can come back with a
> handle and let us know what you really think.
I
If you're going to call him a liar, do it honestly.

> You said (in another post) Dan Rather is a "gentleman." I
> don't know him personally. Walking off in a hissy fit when
> a sports event runs over is not exactly the mark of a
> gentleman. Roger Mudd, in print, called him "the J.R. Ewing
> of CBS News."

Gee, Mudd wouldn't be biased because Rather beat him out for the anchor job? And the one dealing I had with Rather - he was scheduled to speak at my campus in 1978, the promoters wouldn't let him do interviews, we complained and he wrote a two-page letter to apologize (and complement the reporter and photographer who covered his speech) was very gentlemanly indeed.

>

> To call someone a "journalist" because they read news (and
> even write some of their own copy) is like calling a disc
> jockey a musician.

So what would you call someone who writes "his own copy?" You probably ask reporters for a newspaper "where they get their ideas."

>
> I am not a "news guru, but when I have been in a position to
> work with "CBS Newsradio" I have not been a satisfied
> customer.
So they're biased, but you're not.


> I am not a programming guru but to my ear CBS Radio
> Newscasts have always been a bit stodgy; the "Tiffany"
> network thing, I guess. Once it worked. In recent years,
> however, CBS radio newscasts have been dummed down and "CBS
> Newsradio" has tried to make the newscasts sound more
> contemporary (i.e., more like ABC). The result: More fluff.
> Shorter stories. Sound for the sake of having sound.
> Sound bites from correspondents rather than actual reports.
> But still stodgy. Sort of like an old lady dressed in teen
> age slutware.

Just like newspapers looking more like USA Today, younger TV anchors, and flashier sets. The best newscast in the world is useless if nobody pays attention to it. You can be flashy and still solid.

>
> Radio news, like radio in general, is built on hype and
> self-promotion. No one can believe what radio people say
> about themselves, their operations, their organizations or
> their ratings.
>
Translation - you don't want to believe. Fine. But that doesn't mean you're all wrong or all right.