Should Newscasts on Talk Stations Match Hosts' Biases?

[Jay F]

I can see your point. But there are a lot of sources to get straight news. Unbiased news could be boring or a tuneout for many political talk listeners. Why not give them a newscast that they will actually look forward to?

Because then it's not news. It's opinion, or worse yet, propaganda. News should be as objective as a group of trained journalists can possibly make it.

Then everyone is on an even playing field. A station with low ratings needs to think out of the box to increase audience. There are so many straight news sources..radio and (mostly) non-radio. Being like everyone else will keep these stations invisible. I'm not saying all stations should have opinionated/biased news but it would work to the advantage of some stations. With the endless amount of media/information sources, it's all about survivial..these stations need to offer something different.

 

[flashback]

the bottom line is if its news it should be unbiased.if its not unbiased its comentary.there is room for both but the comentary should not be disquised as news.

if a station wants to do comentary in either to the left or right in its newscast it should call itself call comentary not all news.

 

[flashback]

^jay, then doesn`t that make it more comentary durring the newscast then news?

if it`s news it should be straight up unbiased news.if it is to be with a concervative or liberal direction to it keep it in the comentary shows.

I can see your point. But there are a lot of sources to get straight news. Unbiased news could be boring or a tuneout for many political talk listeners. Why not give them a newscast that they will actually look forward to?

as long as they call it comentary thats fine but to call comentary news is wrong.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Then everyone is on an even playing field. A station with low ratings needs to think out of the box to increase audience. There are so many straight news sources..radio and (mostly) non-radio. Being like everyone else will keep these stations invisible. I'm not saying all stations should have opinionated/biased news but it would work to the advantage of some stations. With the endless amount of media/information sources, it's all about survivial..these stations need to offer something different.
[/quote]

In my opinion, creative offering of the news is ok, providing that stations issue a disclaimer-logo, i.e., "News & ANALYSIS With Joe Blow..." or "News & COMMENTARY, With Your Host..."

In a less than perfect world, no individual in this business can lay claim to being totally bias-free. But newscasters in particular should subscribe to a less periferal focus, and respectfully distinguish their programming from the entertainment (or "TALK") side. Doing so would serve to build trust and confidence in the news product, along with a loyal listener base. Cross-bantering in and out of newscasts is ok, when done briskly, and in good taste.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

All of this whining about bias is based on one assumption: that people are too stupid to pick out the bias and use their internal BS detectors to discern the truth in a story. I think the modern media consumer is much more savvy than a lot of people think. A reasonable person can watch Fox News or MSNBC and be able to pick out the spin and know what the real story is.

I agree with the spirit of your assumptions on both the "modern consumer" and "a reasonable person". I part ways with your confidence though; plenty of viewers seem to hang their hats on spin. I read an opinion on a different blog last May in which the writer referred to Keith Oberman as a "news reporter". That was scarey.

 

[Open Source]

I agree with the spirit of your assumptions on both the "modern consumer" and "a reasonable person". I part ways with your confidence though; plenty of viewers seem to hang their hats on spin. I read an opinion on a different blog last May in which the writer referred to Keith Oberman as a "news reporter". That was scarey.

I'll one-up you on that. On another forum, I actually saw someone compare Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow. I agree that it's a scary thought. While there will always be that segment of any audience, people are used to being bombarded with both news and opinion these days. I think they've gotten used to seeing through the BS. At least I hope I'm closer to the truth than you are. I could very well be wrong.

 

[smedge2006]

Adding in a forceful opinion is not the only way to bias a newscast. Is it wrong to do what Randall Bloomquist suggests: do more Solyndra stories because your audience doesn't like Obama, probably at the expense of something else? Tilt your sound bites toward people from The Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks? There is one radio "news" operation that appears to have taken this to heart: " America's Radio News Network ", the one that claims to be "Journalism without agenda."

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

I agree with the spirit of your assumptions on both the "modern consumer" and "a reasonable person". I part ways with your confidence though; plenty of viewers seem to hang their hats on spin. I read an opinion on a different blog last May in which the writer referred to Keith Oberman as a "news reporter". That was scarey.

I'll one-up you on that. On another forum, I actually saw someone compare Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow. I agree that it's a scary thought. While there will always be that segment of any audience, people are used to being bombarded with both news and opinion these days. I think they've gotten used to seeing through the BS. At least I hope I'm closer to the truth than you are. I could very well be wrong.

I hope you're right and I am WRONG!

 

[listener-in]

It's a sad commentary on the electronic media that the question is even asked. (It doesn't appear to be much of an issue in the print media). A couple of quotes come to mind:

• You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts - Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan
  
• Comment is free but facts are sacred - C.P Scott, longtime editor and publisher of the Manchester Guardian.
  

I'm sure there are plenty more.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Adding in a forceful opinion is not the only way to bias a newscast. Is it wrong to do what Randall Bloomquist suggests: do more Solyndra stories because your audience doesn't like Obama, probably at the expense of something else? Tilt your sound bites toward people from The Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks? There is one radio "news" operation that appears to have taken this to heart: " America's Radio News Network ", the one that claims to be "Journalism without agenda."

"America's News Network"-- Is that the financially strapped network piloted by Al Frankin?

 

[KeyTimes950]

I agree with the spirit of your assumptions on both the "modern consumer" and "a reasonable person". I part ways with your confidence though; plenty of viewers seem to hang their hats on spin. I read an opinion on a different blog last May in which the writer referred to Keith Oberman as a "news reporter". That was scarey.

I'll one-up you on that. On another forum, I actually saw someone compare Olbermann to Edward R. Murrow. I agree that it's a scary thought. While there will always be that segment of any audience, people are used to being bombarded with both news and opinion these days. I think they've gotten used to seeing through the BS. At least I hope I'm closer to the truth than you are. I could very well be wrong.

Radio news has an interesting history. The newspapers sought to control what news was airing on radio and compelled the networks to accept an agreement where twice a day a script of stories would be fed to every station. Networks got around it in two ways. CBS built an army of reporters around the world (hence, the "World News Roundup" that still airs each morning on many CBS stations and the network's ability to cover the growing crisis leading to World War II with correspondents where the news was happening).

There also was the ability to have "news and commentary." When Paul Harvey passed away, so did the era of newscasters who could give their spin to stories. Yes, it produced the H.V. Kaltenborns and Lowell Thomases, and the Walter Winchells and Hedda Hoppers, but in the great swim of things that was not such a bad thing. It could be (and should be) said that the Olbermanns and Limbaughs are descendants of such commentators.

We are in a day when the radio and TV networks are supposed to be independent of the newspapers, but in truth there still is at the very least a symbiotic relationship, such as media partnerships that in Pittsburgh the Post-Gazette has with the KDKA stations and the Tribune-Review has with WIIC-11 and KQV-1410 (and in both cases there is give and take from both sides), but often instead is a parasitic relationship. It's still easier to read something out of a paper or off a website than to go out and get the story for yourself.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

[/quote]

Radio news has an interesting history. The newspapers sought to control what news was airing on radio and compelled the networks to accept an agreement where twice a day a script of stories would be fed to every station. Networks got around it in two ways. CBS built an army of reporters around the world (hence, the "World News Roundup" that still airs each morning on many CBS stations and the network's ability to cover the growing crisis leading to World War II with correspondents where the news was happening).

There also was the ability to have "news and commentary." When Paul Harvey passed away, so did the era of newscasters who could give their spin to stories. Yes, it produced the H.V. Kaltenborns and Lowell Thomases, and the Walter Winchells and Hedda Hoppers, but in the great swim of things that was not such a bad thing. It could be (and should be) said that the Olbermanns and Limbaughs are descendants of such commentators.

We are in a day when the radio and TV networks are supposed to be independent of the newspapers, but in truth there still is at the very least a symbiotic relationship, such as media partnerships that in Pittsburgh the Post-Gazette has with the KDKA stations and the Tribune-Review has with WIIC-11 and KQV-1410 (and in both cases there is give and take from both sides), but often instead is a parasitic relationship. It's still easier to read something out of a paper or off a website than to go out and get the story for yourself.

[/quote]

Wow, great insight! I wish this forum could spread such wisdom into the greater pool of average viewers & isteners. I am still troubled by the over-arching influence of news "commentators" on hungry news consumers.

 

[smedge2006]

Adding in a forceful opinion is not the only way to bias a newscast. Is it wrong to do what Randall Bloomquist suggests: do more Solyndra stories because your audience doesn't like Obama, probably at the expense of something else? Tilt your sound bites toward people from The Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks? There is one radio "news" operation that appears to have taken this to heart: " America's Radio News Network ", the one that claims to be "Journalism without agenda."

"America's News Network"-- Is that the financially strapped network piloted by Al Frankin?

Er, no. Quite the opposite. It's a network founded by the right-wing Talk Radio Network, which has unrelentingly promoted right-wing talk (with the exception of Phil Hendrie, who serves as a kind of
camel's nose under the tent on liberal stations to berate liberals and tell them how messed up they are on their own turf). TRN and its affiliates were apparently running into resistance from agencies that didn't want to buy talk shows with hosts yelling conservative talking points. So to get around that, they created a network where people who sound like calm, detached news anchors select stories and interviews in a way to communicate those same talking points.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Adding in a forceful opinion is not the only way to bias a newscast. Is it wrong to do what Randall Bloomquist suggests: do more Solyndra stories because your audience doesn't like Obama, probably at the expense of something else? Tilt your sound bites toward people from The Heritage Foundation and other conservative think tanks? There is one radio "news" operation that appears to have taken this to heart: " America's Radio News Network ", the one that claims to be "Journalism without agenda."

"America's News Network"-- Is that the financially strapped network piloted by Al Frankin?

Er, no. Quite the opposite. It's a network founded by the right-wing Talk Radio Network, which has unrelentingly promoted right-wing talk (with the exception of Phil Hendrie, who serves as a kind of
camel's nose under the tent on liberal stations to berate liberals and tell them how messed up they are on their own turf). TRN and its affiliates were apparently running into resistance from agencies that didn't want to buy talk shows with hosts yelling conservative talking points. So to get around that, they created a network where people who sound like calm, detached news anchors select stories and interviews in a way to communicate those same talking points.

Thanks for the comeback. I caught my error after pulling the trigger. Franken's outfit is "Air America", or something like that. Could have corrected through "MODIFY", then decided just to let it go, hoping nobody would catch this fax paux. Should have known better.

Not familiar with TRN. Wonder if it airs anywhere in Colorado...

 

[Open Source]

So to get around that, they created a network where people who sound like calm, detached news anchors select stories and interviews in a way to communicate those same talking points.

For a second I thought you were talking about NPR.

 

[Dr. Daliah]

My vote...No. Top of the hour news attracts both left and right listeners. Whether some stay on and listen or not depends on the upcoming host, but at least keep news consistently non-biased.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

It's a sad commentary on the electronic media that the question is even asked. (It doesn't appear to be much of an issue in the print media).

[

Great call; I suspect that any scrutiny of the "print media" is being squelched by editors, particularly in the dying newspaper trade. Many of them selectively publish only the write-in op-ed submissions that conform to the paper's ideology.

Newspapers live and die as a pay-as-you-go medium. Consumers express satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the product by renewing or cancelling their subscriptions. In most cases, save for more movitated readers willing to post their views on-line, that's as far as the "discussion" goes.

 

[KeyTimes950]

We are in a day when the radio and TV networks are supposed to be independent of the newspapers, but in truth there still is at the very least a symbiotic relationship, such as media partnerships that in Pittsburgh the Post-Gazette has with the KDKA stations and the Tribune-Review has with WIIC-11 and KQV-1410 (and in both cases there is give and take from both sides), but often instead is a parasitic relationship. It's still easier to read something out of a paper or off a website than to go out and get the story for yourself.

[/quote]

Wow, great insight! I wish this forum could spread such wisdom into the greater pool of average viewers & isteners. I am still troubled by the over-arching influence of news "commentators" on hungry news consumers.
[/quote]

First of all, thank you for your kind reply. But I just noticed I goofed on one point. I grew up with WIIC-11, but for years it has been WPXI-11. The rest of my point stands -- and your kind reply is appreciated.

 

[jfrancispastirchak]

Wow, great insight! I wish this forum could spread such wisdom into the greater pool of average viewers & isteners. I am still troubled by the over-arching influence of news "commentators" on hungry news consumers.

First of all, thank you for your kind reply. But I just noticed I goofed on one point. I grew up with WIIC-11, but for years it has been WPXI-11. The rest of my point stands -- and your kind reply is appreciated.
[/quote]

Everyone goofs. That's why God put erasers on pencils. Sharp respondents on this blog have alerted me to a few errors of my own.

 

[radiobum]

Then there is the obvious issue of doing stories conservative talk listeners are interested in like gun control and abortion. Solyndra is a real story despite your political point of view. Then again I'm big on doing environmental stories so listeners know that Limbaugh and his ilk are 100 % wrong, Republicans are much more interested in the wealthy than they are of the concerns of working people and Palestinians have legitimate complaints.