• 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

Fox News' Shepard Smith A National Disgrace

landtuna

landtuna

I walked into my kitchen this afternoon to eat some lunch and flipped on the TV which was on Fox. Shepard Smith was on-air breathlessly bleating about the shooting in SoCal. This is what I remember from the first few minutes (paraphrased):

"We don't know how many shooters there were."
"The police can't tell us anything."
"We don't know how many victims there were."
"We don't know who the victims are."
"The police are not telling us anything. We don't know anything."
"We don't know the motive for the attack."
"The police are not releasing any information."

This type of rant went on and on for a full five minutes before I hit the button to change to my local CBS affiliate where Scott Pelley was calmly giving out most of the information Smith didn't seem able to get. I have never seen such a loss of control by a network new anchor nor such a complete hyperventilating moron in my entire life.

I'm reminded today why I don't watch any Fox network programs. What a disgrace!!!
 
Smith is no fool, but he tends to get way too emotional. But he also knows his mostly right-wing audience will (1) blame Obama no matter who did it, (2) blame Arabs no matter who did it, and (3) accuse the Federal government of a coverup, no matter who did it.

He has to either say nothing or agree with that point of view. I still remember his rant during Hurricane Katrina 10 years ago, chastising the Bush administration for their inept handling of the crisis. He was spot-on, but I'm still surprised he wasn't fired for telling the truth. Fox Noise viewers can't handle the truth.

And BTW, even though two suspects are now dead, nobody's releasing any information. It could be a disgruntled employee or it could be terrorism. We really don't know yet.
 
I'm not a Shep Smith fan, but to me he did not appear any more foolish yesterday than any of the
other cable TV anchors who were covering this story.
 
"We have all of this information, but we are going to be sensitive and responsible, even if it is deliberate suppression of the news.".
 
Silkie said:
"We have all of this information, but we are going to be sensitive and responsible, even if it is deliberate suppression of the news.".
Click to expand...

News organizations are not automatically entitled to information that the authorities are not ready to release. What parts of "crime investigation," "possible terrorism," and even possibly "classified information" do they just not get?
 
I would buy that had they did not announced outright on the air, live, that they had all of that information but were going to be "sensitive" and "responsible" and not report it. I suspect that they were given the information to report.
 
"...upwards of three...Joe Pags...whatever..."

Joe Pags, radio talk show host, got under Shep's skin with that one. :)
 
Silkie said:
I would buy that had they did not announced outright on the air, live, that they had all of that information but were going to be "sensitive" and "responsible" and not report it. I suspect that they were given the information to report.
Click to expand...

I understand why reporters and anchors want information, but it's the job of police spokespersons to give accurate information, and that frequently takes some time in a chaotic situation.

For what it's worth, and true or not, I read somewhere that Smith's politics lean to the left, which puts him at odds with most of the staff at Fox News. I've also read that he has wanted to come out of the closet as gay, but Roger Ailes said no.
 
There is something that has not been mentioned here. The anchors you see are not the ones that make the call on what to say when. There is a staff and news director that clears everything that goes on air. The anchor does not make that call. And there might be someone whispering in the earpiece to do and say what and how to deliver the information. Then again the guy might just get wound up on breaking news stories. In any case, you can rest assured it is what the news director and other management felt they wanted or they were freaking out and trying to go to commercial as fast as possible.
 
I thought most of Fox News was a national disgrace.

However, this is another case of information coming in faster than it can be easily verified, and things get on the air that in an earlier era wouldn't have.

Sometimes I long for the days when the news came from the local station at 6:00 and 11:00pm, the network at 7:00, and 99% of the news being pre-written, with fact checking, before airing.

Oh, well ... at least (as far as I've been able to determine) Fox News didn't put Bill O'Reilly on to blame the San Bernardino tragedy on Keith Olbermann.
 
Now wait a minute, didn't we "know" that the Planned Parenthood shooter was a "right wing extremist Christian terrorist who was enraged by Carly Fiorina (even while he lived in a trailer with no electrictity) and represented every Christian and every Republican in the U.S" within minutes? (The only "proof" that he said "baby parts" being one still anonymous source).
 
Methinks there is no such thing as faithful journalism anymore.
 
TheBigA said:
Ever hear of William Randolph Hearst?
Click to expand...

And we venerate Pulitzer for his journalism awards, but he was a champion muck-raker, too.
 
landtuna said:


Muck-raking and yellow journalism are two very different things.
Click to expand...

"Yellow journalism" is the sensationalizing and crude exaggeration of the news as well as scandal mongering and . "Muck raking" is the searching for the base and common while apparently crusading; it's often a term given to the early era of investigative journalism which made its points by the same kinds of sensationalism as the yellow journalism practitioners.

The two qualities defined both Pulitzer and Hearst.

Example: the "investigation" of the incidents in Cuba by Hearst was muck-raking investigative journalism and the presentation was yellow journalism at its "finest".
 
DavidEduardo said:


"Yellow journalism" is the sensationalizing and crude exaggeration of the news as well as scandal mongering and . "Muck raking" is the searching for the base and common while apparently crusading; it's often a term given to the early era of investigative journalism which made its points by the same kinds of sensationalism as the yellow journalism practitioners.

The two qualities defined both Pulitzer and Hearst.

Example: the "investigation" of the incidents in Cuba by Hearst was muck-raking investigative journalism and the presentation was yellow journalism at its "finest".
Click to expand...

I have never heard that the two terms to be co-joined in one investigation.

Muck-raking has these definitions:

1. To search for and expose real or alleged corruption, scandal, or the like, especially in politics. (Dictionary.com)
2. Meaning "one who inquires into and publishes scandal and allegations of corruption among political and business leaders," popularized 1906 in speech by President Theodore Roosevelt, in reference to "man ... with a Muckrake in his hand" in Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" (1684) who seeks worldly gain by raking filth.
(Dictionary.com)
3. To search for and expose misconduct in public life. (TheFreeDictionary.com)

Whereas yellow journalism:

1. Journalism that is based upon sensationalism and crude exaggeration. (Google.com)
2. Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers. (TheFreeDictionary.com)
3. The use of cheaply sensational or unscrupulous methods in newspapers, etc. to attract or influence readers. (YourDictionary.com)

Muck-raking is used to define the act of investigation into the lowest of human activities - crime, dirty politics, illegal activities etc.) while yellow journalism is publishing lies, exaggerations and other exploitative material, usually for the purpose of driving readers attitudes or opinions to a desired conclusion. Your example of Hearst Newspapers using yellow journalism to presume the cause of the destruction of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor and the subsequent call to arms against Spain as the culprit is traditionally used as the prime example of yellow journalism. There is little evidence that Hearst spent any quality time investigating the cause of this event however as his primary intent was to cause a war between Spain and the USA.

Subsequent study well after the fact has suggested the actual cause of the explosion aboard the Maine was wet coal which caused a fire in one of the coal bunkers.

The best example of muck-raking is Sinclair Lewis' book which exposed the illegal activities of the meat processing industry in the late 1800's.
 
Last edited:
landtuna said:
I have never heard that the two terms to be co-joined in one investigation.
Click to expand...

In this case, muck-raking is the discovery of events and incidents while yellow journalism is the publishing of the results.

The initial investigations of the sinking of the Maine all concluded it had been attacked with a mine. The theory that firedamp (coal gas) had ignited in a bunker came much later. In the meantime Hearst printed that their reporters had concluded that a mine was used to sink the vessel.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom