Ted Koppel Calls News Industry "A Disaster"

[DToTheJ]

On BBC World News, the former ABC News "Nightline" anchor appears (to me, anyway) to take a potshot at the likes of Fox News and MSNBC, cable news networks with a political perspective.

"We now feel entitled not to have the news that we need but the news that we want. We want to listen to news that comes from those who already sympathize with our particular point of view. We don't want the facts any more."

Full story:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ws_industry_i_think_its_a_disaster_158304.asp

 

[whit979]

Koppel is dead-on correct. News directors know that their programming has got to stir some kind of emotional response within their viewers or they fall into the trash heap with all the other cable channels. The news isn't designed to make you think any more. It's designed to make you angry, to make you sad, to make you scared -- and to make you watch. It truly is a disaster.

 

[FreddyE1977]

Although his comments do bear just a whiff of bitterness over the fact that being a prime news voice on one of the Big Three no longer carries the power and influence that it once did. (never again will a network news anchor unilaterally declare a war to be over, for example)

 

[KeithE4]

On BBC World News, the former ABC News "Nightline" anchor appears (to me, anyway) to take a potshot at the likes of Fox News and MSNBC, cable news networks with a political perspective.

"We now feel entitled not to have the news that we need but the news that we want. We want to listen to news that comes from those who already sympathize with our particular point of view. We don't want the facts any more."

Full story:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ws_industry_i_think_its_a_disaster_158304.asp

And this is different from the newspapers of the 18th, 19th, and early-to-mid 20th centuries exactly how? Partisan news sources are a fine American tradition going back to the days of our Founding Fathers.

 

[justpassingthough]

On BBC World News, the former ABC News "Nightline" anchor appears (to me, anyway) to take a potshot at the likes of Fox News and MSNBC, cable news networks with a political perspective.

"We now feel entitled not to have the news that we need but the news that we want. We want to listen to news that comes from those who already sympathize with our particular point of view. We don't want the facts any more."

Full story:
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ws_industry_i_think_its_a_disaster_158304.asp

And this is different from the newspapers of the 18th, 19th, and early-to-mid 20th centuries exactly how? Partisan news sources are a fine American tradition going back to the days of our Founding Fathers.

Its different from past centuries in that we live in a global society, and our actions and beliefs have consequences on a greater scale than a farmer living in rural 19th century Iowa who read the local paper that supported his already partisan beliefs. Through technology, it is much easier to be involved in democracy now than it has ever been in the history of America (or the world, for that matter). When people rely on one-sided sources to make their decisions, whether they're economic, political, or social decisions, it can transform and shape our democracy like in no time in the past.

 

[recto101]

Koppel is dead-on correct. News directors know that their programming has got to stir some kind of emotional response within their viewers or they fall into the trash heap with all the other cable channels. The news isn't designed to make you think any more. It's designed to make you angry, to make you sad, to make you scared -- and to make you watch. It truly is a disaster.

I agree that. Even Jon Stewart is going after the Cable Tabloids for this.

 

[Markxxx]

Part of it is different because TV and Radio are not a free market.

A free market is defined as anyone with enough capital can start up a business. If I had a billion dollars I can't just open a TV or radio station. I have to have a government license. And there are only so many TV and radio licenses to go around.

So the market in TV and radio is limited for start ups.

Also the business model has changed. We don't have broadcasters interested in TV and radio. They're interested in making money. Sure William S Paley wanted to make big bucks, but he was also conserned what the network would be viewed as.

As conservative as Rupert Murdoch is, you can bet your life, if suddenly he found out he could make more money as a liberal, how quickly FOX News would switch over. Murdoch's politics is money. And he's just one example, I am not singling him out, there are tons of others, liberal and conservative just like him.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

. The news isn't designed to make you think any more. It truly is a disaster.

Case in point is the decision to promote Diane Sawyer as lead anchor for ABC News. What ever happened to just reporting the news? Instead she has to add her two cents after each story. :

Fox News is an appendage of the right wing, while MSNBC has their lips stuck to the backside of the left-wingers. CNN is just a plain joke!

CBS is still trying to figure out how to get rid of Couric while NBC is hoping that Brian Williams will be around for a long time.

 

[KeithE4]

Also the business model has changed. We don't have broadcasters interested in TV and radio. They're interested in making money. Sure William S Paley wanted to make big bucks, but he was also conserned what the network would be viewed as.

The business model changed because the institutional investors (401Ks, mutual funds, union pension funds, and the like) own most of the stock (90% of CBS is owned by these companies, collectively, per Yahoo Finance). Their sole goal, in turn, is to make money for their investors. They're strictly about the money and they, as a group, control many, if not most, American publicly-traded corporations.

Since they're the owners, they have the right to decide the direction of the business. Doesn't make it right, but it makes it a fact.

 

[DToTheJ]

Fox News is an appendage of the right wing, while MSNBC has their lips stuck to the backside of the left-wingers. CNN is just a plain joke!

And based on the cable news ratings, nobody's laughing. :-\

 

[btone1035]

I agree with Koppel.

FNC-right wing, Tea Partiers, rude to guests that are Democrats(unless you work at FNC), hate Obama network
MSNBC-I love them, but they are partisan as well
CNN-Still respect them, but they are boring to watch. No wonder they are way down in the ratings, and even losing to HLN. Ouch!

Overall, cable news should be abolished. Give me local news over cable news all day.

 

[recto101]

Look Its because the Cable News industry should be renamed to (the Cable political Tabloids and Propaganda channels.)

 

[TexasTom]

Part of it is different because TV and Radio are not a free market.

A free market is defined as anyone with enough capital can start up a business. If I had a billion dollars I can't just open a TV or radio station. I have to have a government license. And there are only so many TV and radio licenses to go around.

So the market in TV and radio is limited for start ups.

You're right...but for the wrong reason. CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are not licensed by the government, since they aren't broadcast channels. Instead, they had to go to the various multichannel providers (which, today, would be Comcast, Time Warner, DirecTV, etc) and negotiate carriage agreements. In theory, that market for negotiating those agreements should be a free market.

The reality, of course, is very different. Cable companies favor channels that they have an ownership interest in. Big media companies use their popular channels to gain carriage for their less popular channels. And the industry is highly concentrated both vertically and horizontally.

So if you have a billion dollars, you are theoretically free to go out and negotiate your own deals. But you're not likely to get very far. Because in this business, you'll be a small, inconsequential player.