Not worth it any of them for me. Remember back in 2016 the circular firing squad they all did on Bernie during the primaries...clearly corporate interests or very rich Democrats are their priority.
-
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
CBS Evening News Anchor
- Thread starter TheBigA
- Start date
I know that's true for the Charlotte Observer. It is now printed three times a week, but I think except for sports we get everything. For some reason NFL Panthers games don't get articles like they used to. Why they couldn't just wait for Wednesday I don't know, but I suppose people who want those articles will be happy with what they get online, and they can get that sooner.
The McClatchy papers don't get Associated Press content but the Times is used a lot as a source.
You are not the only person in this community with a grasp of something no matter how many times you try to make it so.
That does not elevate you above others in terms of knowledge.
Great. Plenty of us know damn well what we’re talking about from careful historical studies and find it spot-on.
The comparison here is asinine. Or whatever is beyond asinine. The ghost written Trump book from 40 years ago is not remotely comparable to what is happening now in government. Project 2025 on the other hand? Yeah. It for damn sure is. And that is what matters: plans for how the regime will rule while in power.
I agree, and one only has to read the texts from the Dominion lawsuit for the way the hosts view their roles in that branding. To take it one step further, there's clearly a difference between what they do on the channel and the direction of the online material. They understand there's a different audience online, and it's more extreme. So their presentation online is more extreme than what you see on the channel. But it's all branded "FoxNews."
Comparing it to CBSNews.com, they have now added a segment using the Bari Weiss branding: TheFreePress. Once again, there's a different audience online, and therefore a different presentation.
Perhaps that's true for some. However, last year, WNYC's "On The Media," reran a story it produced a couple of decades back about the Fox network and the 2000 U.S. presidential election. As part of that story, it was noted that Fox received a lot of positive feedback for its comments criticizing the Florida recounts from viewers who said that they wished that other networks took the same positions. What that story suggests to me is that Fox didn't so much create these viewers as it *amplified the positions that these viewers already had. Put another way, there is a large (though not majority) group of U.S. citizens who were supporting the views offered by Fox long before that network existed. And this idea is consistent with my family background where my father viewed Martin Luther King, Jr. not as a civil rights hero but as a promoter of Communism. And he died in 2001!
Remember Jim Acosta?
barrettmedia.com
Once again, the only name anyone remembers from CBS News is Walter Cronkite, and he left 50 years ago. If he's the only name, perhaps nobody has watched CBS News since then. That's a problem if your business is about attracting viewers for advertisers.
Jim Acosta attacked the president to his face. What was the result? Is he still at CNN? No. Take a look around. Congress isn't holding this president accountable. The courts aren't holding the president accountable. Other world leaders aren't holding this president accountable. The American people aren't holding this president accountable. Why?
Jim Acosta: Walter Cronkite 'Spinning in His Grave' After Changes at CBS Evening News
"What we should be having in this country is a free press that can hold the (expletive) President the United States accountable without everybody worried whether they're going to lose their (expletive) job."
barrettmedia.com
Once again, the only name anyone remembers from CBS News is Walter Cronkite, and he left 50 years ago. If he's the only name, perhaps nobody has watched CBS News since then. That's a problem if your business is about attracting viewers for advertisers.
Jim Acosta attacked the president to his face. What was the result? Is he still at CNN? No. Take a look around. Congress isn't holding this president accountable. The courts aren't holding the president accountable. Other world leaders aren't holding this president accountable. The American people aren't holding this president accountable. Why?
Last edited:
I don't know if any of you remember this, but George F.W. Bush, when he was President, promoted Fox News from the White House as being (if memory serves) the nation's most truthful news source. I wonder if he regrets that now.
That's part of the reason people don't trust the press. Putting stuff like The Free Press on the website under the CBS name shows their card hands in a bad way. Likewise, CNN platforming Scott Jennings and Bill Maher on their network is kind of a poison pill from within for those who don't like that kind of stuff.
Have you read The Free Press? Here's a link. It's not what you think it is:
Trump’s Dangerous Greenland Game
The president’s petulance has created a diplomatic crisis—and risks undermining his foreign policy achievements.
www.thefp.com
George H. W. Bush is deceased but maybe he regretted it when he was still living?
The Free Press (Common Sense) - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check The Free Press (Common Sense) - Bias and Credibility That story is different than what I'd thought. All I found was the Media Bias sheet of it beforehand.Have you read The Free Press? Here's a link. It's not what you think it is:
Trump’s Dangerous Greenland Game
The president’s petulance has created a diplomatic crisis—and risks undermining his foreign policy achievements.
According to this, people on the right have lower trust in national media than people on the left.
How trust in info from news outlets and social media has changed over time
Overall, 56% of U.S. adults now say they have a lot of or some trust in the information they get from national news organizations – down 11 percentage points since March 2025.
www.pewresearch.org
The drop in trust began in 2016.
He wrote George F.W. Bush, who never existed except as a typo, AFAIK. He could just as well have meant George W. Bush, who was alive and serving as president when Fox News Channel got started.
No, it was the son who promoted Fox like that, not the father. And I apologize--I *really* the son's middle initials were F.W. Thanks, CTListener, for correcting me!
That's because they all became "the resistance" to Trump (and Bernie in the primaries) at that time so it tracks. There is a middle ground between factual reporting and obvious resistance.According to this, people on the right have lower trust in national media than people on the left.
How trust in info from news outlets and social media has changed over time
Overall, 56% of U.S. adults now say they have a lot of or some trust in the information they get from national news organizations – down 11 percentage points since March 2025.
The drop in trust began in 2016.
IMHO factual news should make every staunch conservative and staunch liberal mad at least every other day.
It should bore people more than anything. Even on exciting news days, news media should try to neutralize things and make them as uninflammatory as possible.
Remember Jim Acosta?
Jim Acosta: Walter Cronkite 'Spinning in His Grave' After Changes at CBS Evening News
"What we should be having in this country is a free press that can hold the (expletive) President the United States accountable without everybody worried whether they're going to lose their (expletive) job."
Once again, the only name anyone remembers from CBS News is Walter Cronkite, and he left 50 years ago. If he's the only name, perhaps nobody has watched CBS News since then. That's a problem if your business is about attracting viewers for advertisers.
Jim Acosta attacked the president to his face. What was the result? Is he still at CNN? No. Take a look around. Congress isn't holding this president accountable. The courts aren't holding the president accountable. Other world leaders aren't holding this president accountable. The American people aren't holding this president accountable. Why?
Both Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow before him are seen as truly objective journalists among reporters because of their willingness to tell truth to power; Cronkite because of his change in attitudes towards Vietnam when it was learned that the Johnson and Nixon Administrations were hiding evidence of what was actually going on in that war (as well as the latter's expansion of that war into Laos and Cambodia); and Edward R. Murrow, for daring to challenge Senator Joe McCarthy and the House Unamerican Activities subcommittee's actionss towards blacklisting certain people because they had past links to Communism. Acosta's point is that we really don't have media heroes like that today and I have to agree with him.
And I very much disagree with the poster from yesterday (not @TheBigA's view as far as I can tell) who argued that news, particularly what the current Federal Administration is doing, should be giving the claims of all sides equal treatment. That can only work *if all sides are being truthful and factually correct. If one side is ignoring or lying about factual information that contradicts what it is messaging, it should be called out for it! And I really don't give a damn about what the ratings for the media that do this are--the stakes are way too high and go far beyond areas that can be covered on this Board!
One other point that I'll tackle that @The BigA makes in his above response. While it is true that the U.S. Supreme Court (controlled by conservatives) and both Houses of Congress (largely controlled by the current President's Party) are (mostly) out to lunch when it comes to dealing with the excesses of the current Administration (funny how his Party wasn't that way with Nixon), there is a broad and growing coalition of folks nationwide who are raising concerns about this Administration's activities. I won't go into who and how (it is, again, beyond the scope of this forum), but thus far, that opposition has been met with stonewalling, threats and (possibly) unConstitutional activities by the Administration against them.
Last edited:
Absolutely not. Treating obvious issues as if they are nothing of consequence is part of how we got here.
Actually it was during the Clinton era. I was a few years off.
When there is an initial before W it's only natural to think its the father.