CBS News Radio Closed

[vchimpanzee]

My late mom sometimes listened to NPR News on car rides.

I have preferred not to have my music interrupted and one of the stations I like in the car doesn't do it.

Still, it is interesting sometimes.

And I listen to "Wait! Wait!" on Saturday so I get to hear a newscast there if I stay in the room. They do quite a good job. Sometimes after I turn on the radio I hear "I'm [insert name here] with these headlines."

How many people will realize that Instagram and TikTok hot takes are not the best forms of reporting compared to a five-minute news summary?

I can't believe they ever did this but when I was still listening to the last half-hour of the morning show on the oldies station that used to be America's Best Music, they had headlines that resembled something like what you are describing. Or maybe not. Each headline was just that. No further information. There was a full newscast at the top of the hour but they did that list of headlines during the final months I was still listening.

 

[TheBigA]

Here's an appreciation about CBS News Radio:

Reflecting on the Silencing of CBS News Radio

"Ultimately, the shutdown of CBS News Radio is both a warning and an opportunity."

barrettmedia.com

 

[davideduardo]

While I think your analysis is on target (Mr. Trump is a chronic liar after all),

David speaking as a non-moderator here: Ted, can you please give us a break from the direct ad hominems against Trump and his administration? Your points would come across better if reasoned in some other way. Over half of us voted for the President, and this kind of incessant comment from you is tiring and offensive.

I also think that both @TheBigA and @Mark Roberts raise valid points regarding the competitive nature of our news media. Sadly, there is an audience out there who really believes that the mainstream media has not only been lying to them about what the President says but that has also been supportive of a federal bureaucracy that they believe is not serving the interest of the American electorate.

And there is an equally large group that looks at the surveys that have been taken that show that an overwhelming majority of the "journalists" in traditional media are Democrats or did not vote for the current president. We distrust ABC, CBS, NBC, the NYT, WaPo, LA Times, Time, and many other sources that depend on journalists who are partial to "the other side".

Unfortunately, Fox, OAN, and others have been taking advantage of these beliefs (some of which have been held for a long time) for their own financial gain.

Every newspaper... even the Christian Science Monitor... depends or depended on making money to keep on publishing. Back in the era of letterpress printing and Linotype devices, a major city's print facility with presses and typesetting could be well into the millions of dollars. I recall when the Cleveland Plain Dealer was sold in the 60's to Newhouse for around $60 million, the physical plant was valued at over $12 million... and that is 1960 dollars, too!

What I'd recommend to all about this U.S. president, given his penchant for lying to both the U.S. press and the American public (and given the closely-guarded secret of his actual mental state) would be to keep an eye on what he actually does, not what he says. For example, during his latest speech, he said the war with Iran would be over in two weeks or so--a claim he's been making (among others) since the first of March. Now, if that claim is true, why is he sending more Marines (foot soldiers) to the Middle East right now. This is where the news media needs to keep the President's feet to the fire.

Okay, that is pure politics and not related to radio or TV. Suffice to say that this is the quickest major confrontation in history, and the media should be showing respect, amazement and encouragement for our armed forces for doing so much in so little time. And I am glad that this is happening before Iran got ballistic missiles capable of landing in my swimming pool in the back yard.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Over half of us voted for the President, and this kind of incessant comment from you is tiring and offensive.

A plurality of those who actually voted selected him. Less than half.

There was a majority voting for him in enough states that the Electoral College was able to select him.

 

[davideduardo]

Here's an appreciation about CBS News Radio:

Reflecting on the Silencing of CBS News Radio

"Ultimately, the shutdown of CBS News Radio is both a warning and an opportunity."

barrettmedia.com

That article seems to ignore both the economics of traditional news media and the massive shift to consumer desires for news in tidbits and sound bites. CBS did not make money from the news operation, and there seems to be no possibility of improving that with a greater investment in the product.

So many of us who ran music stations hated the FCC requirements for a considerable percentage of news and public affairs. We knew, from actually talking to listeners, that music listeners hated those news updates. Four or five decades ago, we had to have high percentages of that content, and if we did not run a station that used news as a favorable program element, nobody was served by those FCC rules.

There is a separate issue of the need for an informed population and an informed electorate. But forcing news on people when and where they don't want it simply drives more and more folks to streaming "pure music" sources.

 

[davideduardo]

A plurality of those who actually voted selected him. Less than half.

No, he had more "raw votes" and also won the Electoral College.

There was a majority voting for him in enough states that the Electoral College was able to select him.

Wrong.

 

[TheBigA]

And there is an equally large group that looks at the surveys that have been taken that show that an overwhelming majority of the "journalists" in traditional media are Democrats or did not vote for the current president.

You said this before and there are no such surveys. None. How one votes is their personal business. While I’m sure there is distrust, it all eminatrs from a biased president who hates the media. Not on some fake surveys that don’t exist.

 

[mightynine]

No, he had more "raw votes" and also won the Electoral College.

Wrong.
View attachment 11738

Now, I've got me some radio math skills, but 49.81% sure don't add up to "more than half".

And his first win most definitely was due to the Electoral College.



So let's not act like he was ever elected with an overwhelming mandate.

 

[davideduardo]

You said this before and there are no such surveys.

Key Findings From The 2022 American Journalist Study

Executive Summary This survey continues the series of major national studies of U.S. journalists begun in 1971 by sociologist John Johnstone and continued in 1982, 1992, 2002, and 2013 by David Weaver, Cleve Wilhoit and their colleagues at Indiana University. Few studies of a profession as...

www.theamericanjournalist.org

Or...

As of 2022, approximately 36% of full-time U.S. journalists identify as Democrats, an 8-percentage-point increase from 2013, according to The American Journalist Study from Syracuse University. This is higher than the general U.S. population (27%). Concurrently, 3.4% identify as Republicans, while 51% identify as Independents. [1, 2, 3]
Key Findings on Journalist Affiliations:

• Democrats: ~36% (2022), up from 28% in 2013.
• Republicans: ~3.4% (2022), down from 7% in 2013 and 18% in 2002.
• Independents/Other: ~51% (2022) to 60%. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Contextual Data:

• Ideological Leaning: While many identify as independent, studies suggest a significant portion of those independents lean left.
• Historical Trend: The 2022 Republican percentage is the lowest in 50 years of this study, notes the Syracuse University report.
• Comparison: The 3.4% Republican figure is significantly lower than the ~26% of U.S. adults who identified as Republican in 2022. [1, 2, 3, 4]

None. How one votes is their personal business. While I’m sure there is distrust, it all eminatrs from a biased president who hates the media. Not on some fake surveys that don’t exist.

If one does a search on "percentage of journalists that are democrats" you will find countless sources that indicated that the percentage of journalists that identify as "red" is less than 10% today. Of course, there is a huge gray area of "who is really a journalist", but based on the usage of the publisher of each journalist's articles the balance is overwhelmingly left-leaning "independents"" or declared Democrat Party affiliates.

 

[davideduardo]

Now, I've got me some radio math skills, but 49.81% sure don't add up to "more than half".

And that is why I said "raw votes". Trump had a majority of the raw votes. And if you remove the Libertarians and other ultra-minority parties as well as nullified votes, Trump had more than half of the decisive votes.

This is why nations that have more than two valid and potentially successful parties don't decide an election on "fifty-fifty" halves, but on majorities.

And his first win most definitely was due to the Electoral College.

View attachment 11739

So let's not act like he was ever elected with an overwhelming mandate.

That is not my point. He was elected because he won.

 

[TheBigA]

As of 2022, approximately 36% of full-time U.S. journalists identify as Democrats,

You said “the overwhelming majority are democrats. 38% is not a majority. That survey identifies 51% as independents. What’s wrong with that?

 

[Larry]

And that is why I said "raw votes". Trump had a majority of the raw votes.

No he did not. Look at the numbers you supplied. The sum of the votes for the D candidate and for “Other” is higher than the number of raw votes for Trump. Very close but still higher than Trump’s raw votes.

 

[davideduardo]

You said “the overwhelming majority are democrats. 38% is not a majority. That survey identifies 51% as independents. What’s wrong with that?

We have to look at the fact that less than 8% of journalists identified as Republicans in one of those studies.

A deeper read of several of the articles indicated that the "independents" were predominantly left of center, meaning they would likely(probably/certainly not have voted for Trump.

It has become very prevalent for people to register or refer to themselves as "independent" because there is so much controversy and even antagonism between parties.

So, if the ratio of Democrats to Republicans based on 9% of one to 38% of the other is roughly four to one, then the 51% of independents will add 40% to the Democrat total and 10% to the Republican total. That means that Democrats are likely about 82% of the community of journalists.

(Projecting "I don't know" / "undecided" based on the shares of those who were defined is a recognized statistical procedure or technique.)

 

[TheBigA]

We have to look at the fact that less than 8% of journalists identified as Republicans in one of those studies

No. We have to look at the fact that 51% are independents. That is the majority. There are many opinions in this country. Not just two.

 

[Larry]

Suffice to say that this is the quickest major confrontation in history, and the media should be showing respect, amazement and encouragement for our armed forces for doing so much in so little time.

That basically sounds like the media should be fawning over everything we’ve accomplished in this war and not questioning anything. Like why did we attack Iran and what is our overall goal. Because the answers to those questions seem to change almost daily. Which journalists should be reporting on, the almost consistent non-consistent answers and messaging from the White House.

 

[davideduardo]

No he did not. Look at the numbers you supplied. The sum of the votes for the D candidate and for “Other” is higher than the number of raw votes for Trump. Very close but still higher than Trump’s raw votes.

"Majority" can mean "more than anyone else" or "half or more". In this case, of the valid votes for one of the two significant parties, Trump had a majority. The other votes were either disqualified or for parties that nobody in the known universe believed had any chance of winning.

Remember, in nations like Ecuador (where I lived and have family) there are usually four to six parities in elections. "Majority" is defined there as "40% or more".

 

[davideduardo]

No. We have to look at the fact that 51% are independents. That is the majority. There are many opinions in this country. Not just two.

Studies done on who independents are start with the fact that about 97% of people vote either Red or Blue. They did not vote for the Libertarian Party or the Green Party or whatever. Studies done have shown that more and more people register as "independent" because they do not want to be seen by others as either Republicans or Democrats.

One of the studies I discovered showed that the number of "independents" who vote Democrat is in excess of 80%.

 

[TheBigA]

Studies done on who independents are start with the fact that about 97% of people vote either Red or Blue.

Reporters have rights too. They have a right to vote the party of their choice. That is their right as a citizen. Just because someone votes a certain way doesn't mean that colors the way they do their job. Same with judges. Some may not like the way the courts rule, but they rule based on the law, not on the way they vote.

Journalists must attribute what they write. If you or anyone doesn't like some reporting, there are lots of choices. Find one that fits your opinion. But you made a statement that an "overwhelming majority are democrats." That's not true. But even if it was, they're all free to have their own opinion. That's what makes us Americans. They should not be persecuted or prosecuted for it. A lot of soldiers have died so we can have that right.

 

[davideduardo]

That basically sounds like the media should be fawning over everything we’ve accomplished in this war and not questioning anything. Like why did we attack Iran and what is our overall goal.

I have seen reports in a variety of sources on each side of the red/blue line saying that the purpose of attacking Iran was to stop its development of a nuclear weapon and to thwart its intervention, via support, of insurgents in other nations.

Because the answers to those questions seem to change almost daily.

I do not see that. The purpose, beyond stopping nuclear development, is to prevent the further perfection of missiles such as ICBMs. I saw a report on MSNBC about the rocket that was intercepted on its way to Diego García that indicated that Iran was capable of much longer "reach" than we used to think.

Which journalists should be reporting on, the almost consistent non-consistent answers and messaging from the White House.

I was in the "news media" back in the era of Vietnam as well as during the Kuwait / Iraq incidents, and find that disclosure is as good as it can get during a war. It is obvious that the new media will not get "advance notice" of strategic decisions or moves, and the attempt of some to ask questions in those areas is tiring and absurd.

 

[davideduardo]

Reporters have rights too. They have a right to vote the party of their choice. That is their right as a citizen. Just because someone votes a certain way doesn't mean that colors the way they do their job. Same with judges. Some may not like the way the courts rule, but they rule based on the law, not on the way they vote.

Journalists must attribute what they write. If you or anyone doesn't like some reporting, there are lots of choices. Find one that fits your opinion. But you made a statement that an "overwhelming majority are democrats." That's not true. But even if it was, they're all free to have their own opinion. That's what makes us Americans.

I've already posted too many times my experiences in Ecuador when there was a government overthrow or revolt. Us "local" journalists would gather later to read together the reports from Pravda, Prensa Latina, Time, AP, UPI, FrancePress and others. We found that each one told the facts, but in a context that reflected both the agency's and the journalist's own perspective. Some of the reports were so bizarre that we questioned whether the journalist had actually been there!