KFAQ News Flushes Remaining Credibility Down Toilet

[Glenn Quagmire]

http://kfaq.typepad.com/newsdesk/

And you all are maybe wondering why your parent company is sinking like the Titanic?

 

[GeneSavage]

I looked at the page, Glen, & I'm confused; what do you think they're doing wrong, now?

I see a newscaster with a blog of news-related items plus a dash of personal opinion (which is to be expected in a blog)... which, by the way, is great way to connect with your audience these days. KRMG has been doing this kind of thing with Joe Kelly for a while.

What am I missing?

Are you just mad at the AM dial?

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

I'm mad b/c news personalities are different than talk personalities. News personalities shouldn't share their opinons with their audience. EVER.

News Personality: KRMG's Dan Potter
Talk Personality: Rush Limbaugh

Dan reads the news and doesn't share his personal opinion.

Rush is free to share his opinion b/c that's his job.

News Personality: KFAQ's Audra Lee
Talk Personality: KFAQ's Pat Campbell

Pat shares his opinion every morning.

Audra reads the news, but is now sharing her opinion via this blog.

Journalism 101: News personalities/reporters/anchors whatever you want to call them, should NEVER share their opinions on a blog.

And it's not just Audra Lee at KFAQ. Brent Smith and Brian Gann are doing the same thing.

Come on NightAire surely you went to journalism school or have had at least a few classes.

And KFAQ wonders why it's news division is in shambles.

 

[GeneSavage]

Uh... I went to college with a journalism major, but no "journalism school"... and I've never heard these "rules" you keep mentioning.

I've been newscaster & host on the same show before; I've been newscaster & DJ on back to back shifts before.

To my knowledge, the FCC doesn't have any requirements about what a newscaster can and can't do. I'm pretty sure it's "whatever the audience will tolerate."

You can take some comfort in KFAQ having half the numbers of KRMG. I seriously doubt it has anything to do with their newscasters' new blogs.

As a listener, I WELCOME the new blogs, and I'm very curious to see them as 3-dimensional human beings, not just copy-readers.

I suspect I'm not the only one.

As someone else has said: don't like it? DON'T LISTEN. If enough people feel like you do and turn away, they will lose ratings, which will cause them to lose advertisers, which will cause them to lose money, which will cause them to change their "evil ways."

Otherwise, enough people DON'T feel like you do, don't feel like they've flushed their credibility down the toilet (or don't care, yes that's an option too), & they make money.

 

[ionosphere]

Glenn, you're just beating a dead horse here.

There's a difference between a newscaster sharing his/her opinions on the air during a newscast and sharing their opinions in an appropriate forum, such as a blog. I would guess that the vast majority of journalists have a personal blog to which they voice their opinions. This is nothing new, and I don't feel there is anything ethically wrong with it, as long as these opinions are not expressed in the venue of a news broadcast.

Journalists are like everyone else. They have an opinion and are entitled to it. I even believe they are entitled to express it. They should should not allow their opinions to influence their work.

 

[Ed Thomas]

Glenn, you're just beating a dead horse here.

There's a difference between a newscaster sharing his/her opinions on the air during a newscast and sharing their opinions in an appropriate forum, such as a blog. I would guess that the vast majority of journalists have a personal blog to which they voice their opinions. This is nothing new, and I don't feel there is anything ethically wrong with it, as long as these opinions are not expressed in the venue of a news broadcast.

Journalists are like everyone else. They have an opinion and are entitled to it. I even believe they are entitled to express it. They should should not allow their opinions to influence their work.

You know what I find most interesting about you, Ionosphere, and NightAire? You both over time have allowed yourselves to blur the line on the issue of fair and unbiased journalism. You say Ionosphere, "They (news reporters and journalists) should should not allow their opinions to influence their work," but you missed the entire point of Glenn's original post.

Journalists should strive as much as possible to NOT let their opinions influence their work, BUT INFLUENCE THE LISTENER OR VIEWERS OPINION OF THEM IN DELIVERING A BALANCED, OBJECTIVE, UN-BIASED REPORT.

Example: Until Walter Cronkite delivered his now-famous "We are mired in stalemate" editorial in February of 1968, no one knew exactly how Cronkite felt about the Vietnam war or to a large extent knew his political position, liberal or conservative.

What happened to that type of reporting in this day and time? And Nightaire, stop telling us, "Don't like it? Don't listen." This isn't about ratings or listenership. This is about fair, balanced reporting that delivers both sides of the story no matter what program or station you listen to.

And finally to both of you...enough of your continuing diatribes about 'the changing face of media'.

 

[radiosharpie]

I've listened to both sides of this subject for far too long. I'm growing weary of hearing fair and balanced. There is no such thing in this world anymore. I know of no media outlet local or national that keeps it completely FAIR or BALANCED. There may have been a time when that was true but I don't believe so anymore.

To Ed Thomas: The face of media is changing whether you like it or not. I can think for myself on every subject that comes my way and if a news anchor has an opinion about something it doesn't influence me one bit. In radio and tv news I don't think it is acceptable to give opinion in a newscast. On that point I agree. However I do agree with NightAire, I don't see anything wrong with that newscaster sharing his thoughts in a blog. That my friend is called free speech. My advice to Ed and Glenn is quit crying and...let it go.

 

[GeneSavage]

This is about fair, balanced reporting that delivers both sides of the story no matter what program or station you listen to.

What the heck does a newscaster expressing an opinion have to do with reporting both sides of the story? Are you suggesting you want a story about a child molester to tell the molester's side, too?

Glen hasn't said they aren't reporting both sides, he's said they've expressed an opinion about both sides.

EVERY SINGLE CBS radio newscast starts out, "President Obama..." Do I complain (until now)? No, that's their right. They seem to eventually get around to every news story. But I'm also convinced the CBS radio story-writers have a FETISH for the man.

I'll tell you what I think. I think you and Glen are liberals who don't like conservatives having the microphone for one minute, much less 24/7 on two stations. I also think if it was a liberal slant (like all the B.S. about global warming, or how Bush authorized torture), you wouldn't bat an eye... I mean, have you for the past 40 years?

Didn't think so.

 

[Ed Thomas]

What the heck does a newscaster expressing an opinion have to do with reporting both sides of the story?

Nice try NightAire, but no one's biting. Again...you missed the point so let me repeat what I originally wrote in simpler terms for those who don't read thoroughly...Journalists should strive as much as possible to NOT let their opinions influence their work and they should also refrain from giving their personal opinions as much as possible. Why? To not influence the listener or viewers opinion of them in delivering a balanced, objective and un-biased report.

You're CBS radio comment about Obama has got nothing to do with ANYTHING we're discussing?!

As for your liberal attack (which you're wrong about my affiliation), you're paranoid. Stay on topic instead of trying to veer from the real fact. KFAQ has ruined their credibility and objectivity. They want to serve one group. That's not "fair and balanced" as they like to say.

 

[GeneSavage]

My Obama comment was to clarify that bias is in the eye of the beholder... and to KFAQ's listeners, they look unbiased.

In other words, your opinion of their newscasters doesn't mean squat to them because you're not a P1.

You sure say "should" a lot... the ratings don't back you up, though...

They want to serve one group. That's not "fair and balanced" as they like to say.

It IS, to that one group. You can't seem to get past the fact that KFAQ isn't about you.

 

[ionosphere]

Glenn, you're just beating a dead horse here.

There's a difference between a newscaster sharing his/her opinions on the air during a newscast and sharing their opinions in an appropriate forum, such as a blog. I would guess that the vast majority of journalists have a personal blog to which they voice their opinions. This is nothing new, and I don't feel there is anything ethically wrong with it, as long as these opinions are not expressed in the venue of a news broadcast.

Journalists are like everyone else. They have an opinion and are entitled to it. I even believe they are entitled to express it. They should should not allow their opinions to influence their work.

You know what I find most interesting about you, Ionosphere, and NightAire? You both over time have allowed yourselves to blur the line on the issue of fair and unbiased journalism. You say Ionosphere, "They (news reporters and journalists) should should not allow their opinions to influence their work," but you missed the entire point of Glenn's original post.

Journalists should strive as much as possible to NOT let their opinions influence their work, BUT INFLUENCE THE LISTENER OR VIEWERS OPINION OF THEM IN DELIVERING A BALANCED, OBJECTIVE, UN-BIASED REPORT.

Example: Until Walter Cronkite delivered his now-famous "We are mired in stalemate" editorial in February of 1968, no one knew exactly how Cronkite felt about the Vietnam war or to a large extent knew his political position, liberal or conservative.

What happened to that type of reporting in this day and time? And Nightaire, stop telling us, "Don't like it? Don't listen." This isn't about ratings or listenership. This is about fair, balanced reporting that delivers both sides of the story no matter what program or station you listen to.

And finally to both of you...enough of your continuing diatribes about 'the changing face of media'.

Ed...let me try this again. There is a difference between a journalist giving their opinion in an opinion-based forum and a journalist giving their opinion within the confines of a news report. Listeners are not stupid. They will formulate their own opinions on a matter, and in this tech-savvy age, they will get their information from more than one source.

To suggest that journalists should not have opinions or should not express their opinions at all is completely ludicrous.

I suppose if I respected or cared for your thoughts on my comments, I might have a more positive reaction to your preaching, but I don't. If you disagree with me, fine, but you will not talk down to me like a child who has no idea what he is talking about. I've been involved in broadcast and print journalism for over 40 years. I know what I am talking about. I grew up watching, listening to, and admiring Walter Cronkite. Anyone with a brain knew where he stood politically for YEARS before the editorial you referenced simply based on the way he treated certain presidents over others.

And maybe you should read this quote from Uncle Walter himself: "...People that would think that journalists should be licensed indicates a real basic ignorance of the necessity of a free press and free speech. They really haven't thought it out that licensing is the worst kind of suppression of free speech."