HLN Taken To Task Over Its "Breaking News"

[imhomerjay]

A little extra fiber in the bran muffins might help.

 

[johnnyu]

Sadly, they are giving the American people what they want.

 

[jsu5381m]

Don Harrison is spinning in his grave.

Even before it was HLN, Headline News started becoming unwatchable when Nancy Grave became part of the lineup.

You want real news? Go an all news radio station on air or online.

NPR comes to mind.

 

[azumanga]

Sadly, they are giving the American people what they want.

But how many Americans want celebrity and sensational news and political propaganda over those who prefer hard news of current events?

 

[fybush]

Sadly, they are giving the American people what they want.

But how many Americans want celebrity and sensational news and political propaganda over those who prefer hard news of current events?

Enough, evidently, to make HLN's current direction more profitable than its previous one, especially given the much lower cost of doing celebrity and crime fluff versus the expense of making a serious attempt to cover the world's "real" news.

That's your unfettered free market in action.

 

[searadiofreak]

It's their entertainment show. Context, people, context.

;D ;D Cheers ;D ;D

Since kids no longer play outside very much, posters cannot scream "Hey you, get off my lawn". Instead they go online and troll a bit to compensate.

Making a comment about HLN's use of the term "breaking news" and offering a subject that would not seem to be, does not equal trolling. It was just a comment.

 

[upstate29651]

Don Harrison is spinning in his grave.

Even before it was HLN, Headline News started becoming unwatchable when Nancy Grave became part of the lineup.

You want real news? Go an all news radio station on air or online.

NPR comes to mind.

REAL news, not news filtered through some left leaning mouthpiece.

G

 

[sandiegoinexile]

Bubblegum vs Caviar

Sadly, they are giving the American people what they want.

But how many Americans want celebrity and sensational news and political propaganda over those who prefer hard news of current events?

You can probably find that out by checking the circulation levels of the National Enquirer/US Weekly/Star/People vs Foreign Policy/Newsweek/Time/Bloomberg ?

 

[DToTheJ]

If this is a "bubblegum vs. caviar" argument, then HLN is sugar-free Big League Chew.

 

[formeraa]

A little extra fiber in the bran muffins might help.

You're on a roll here!!!

I honestly think that people believe they like hard news. However, unless there is an emergency (e.g. tsunami, earthquake, riots in the mideast, etc.), nobody wants to sit down and watch hard news anymore. Since I live in the West, it's often 30 minutes of old, stale news.

Now, I think that there is room for someone to go in-depth on the news with interesting guests who are good at explaining difficult topics (as opposed to giving their biased view on a topic). I believe that such a show could get high viewership.

 

[imhomerjay]

Part of the problem is the way "bias" is thrown around constantly. To listen to some of the rantings, a network would need someone to say the sky is pink to counter the junk science that says the sky is blue. Because, after all, we must present both sides.

Sometimes the facts don't tell the best picture for a particular side. Such is life.

 

[DToTheJ]

...unless there is an emergency (e.g. tsunami, earthquake, riots in the mideast, etc.), nobody wants to sit down and watch hard news anymore...

Stop! Next thing you'll tell me is nobody wants to watch the nightly broadcast network news! :