NewsNation is probably way cheaper than using AP stringers/actualities, which is what USA Radio and SRN-Townhall have used for the longest time.
-
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
WABC launches "Worldwide News Network"
- Thread starter Rollo-Smokes
- Start date
OMG, you're dreaming!
Not at all. I can document it. Same with NPR.
Here is the top story tonight on All Things Considered:
Where is the bias? He's the top story, and they included his wins in the primaries.
Of course! Then why does he complain about coverage??? He's the center of attention every hour of every day on every newscast, and that's still not enough. Even the shows he complains about talk about him to the total exclusion of anyone else. He banned the media from the white house and pentagon, and they still report on those stories. He's put every possible roadblock he can in front of the media, suing them, cutting their funding, and blocking their reporting. He attacks and insults them every day to their face. That's still not enough for him.
So far, the reporting I've seen from WNN isn't unbiased. I didn't hear any context or opposition in their presentation. They report that 32 ships passed through the strait of Hormuz. What they didn't say is it's down from over 120 just six weeks ago.
The above quote is what unbiased reporting looks like. Compare it to what you hear on WNN.
Last edited:
Yeah, but look at language like "retribution campaign," "inserted himself" and more. Bad example.
Retribution is his word. He ran on that. People voted for him because of it. And they voted against Massie and Cassidy because of it. So that's not a biased word in this case. It's factual reporting. I think the president would be fine with that characterization. He'd likely say they deserve it.
However, All Things Considered is not the same thing as the 5 minute TOH newscasts. My point is that all news operations, regardless of their perceived bias, give time and attention to things being done by the president. They're not all cheerleading him. They're reporting. That's what journalism is.
My problem with WNN is the lack of context. The way to do fair and balanced reporting is to present the other side. I didn't hear any of that in WNN. If you did, show me.
The other thing I should point out is that the president is in the media business. He posts government information on his personal social media site that he owns and profits from. That site isn't owned by the government, and isn't controlled by any government rules. But the information he posts is often from internal government sources, and potentially classified information. He's giving details on his negotiations with Iran that I'm sure would be better to be kept secret. But he's the president, and he can declassify whatever he wants. That site is fair game. The media quotes it every day, because it's apparently coming from the president. Asking his press secretary to explain it is a waste of time. But the media is responsible for reporting the facts. Just because he posts it on his social media site doesn't mean it's true.
The way journalists can check his facts is to ask those in the departments that deal in those matters. They'll often defer back to the white house. That's why having reporters at the pentagon is a waste of time. The people there just repeat what they're told. Reporters can also ask retired military and government people. But the next step is to check what the president is saying with sources on the other side. Turns out the Iranians also like to blab a lot. The president says reporting what the enemy says is treason. Nobody is saying what the enemy is saying is true. But it provides context to what we're being told from the white house. If you check news reporting during WW2 and Vietnam, the media did a lot of the same thing. Just repeating what the president posts on his social media site isn't doing original reporting. That's part of the problem I see with WNN.
The way journalists can check his facts is to ask those in the departments that deal in those matters. They'll often defer back to the white house. That's why having reporters at the pentagon is a waste of time. The people there just repeat what they're told. Reporters can also ask retired military and government people. But the next step is to check what the president is saying with sources on the other side. Turns out the Iranians also like to blab a lot. The president says reporting what the enemy says is treason. Nobody is saying what the enemy is saying is true. But it provides context to what we're being told from the white house. If you check news reporting during WW2 and Vietnam, the media did a lot of the same thing. Just repeating what the president posts on his social media site isn't doing original reporting. That's part of the problem I see with WNN.
You make some good points. I haven't had a chance to compare WNN with ABC TOH news but I will soon.
To me, the most biased source of news ever is the Associated Press. I've often rolled my eyes when reading their articles but didn't make notes so I can't substantiate it now.
I think the bottom line is that anyone who says they've found an unbiased source of news is either native or lying!
Just the fact that Catsimitidas uses the phrase "fair, balanced" should give the game away.
Everyone says that!!!
Are you serious???
Absolutely.
I did save one AP quote from 2017:
"Until Wednesday, Trump had spent most of his two months as president-elect doling out policy
pronouncements, attacks on critics and boasts about his victory in 140-character increments on
Twitter."
In fact he spent much of his time during those days at Trump Tower meeting with potential cabinet and staff candidates. They were in and out at all hours.
I doubt that these folks liked Trump very much:
"Associated Press writers Ken Thomas in Washington, Jonathan Lemire in New York and
Christopher Sherman in Mexico City contributed to this report."
That's just one example, sorry I don't have more. I usually just roll my eyes and move on.
Here's the full article with context as posted on a local Fox TV affiliate site.
Combative Trump concedes Russia's role in election hacking
Opening his first news conference since the election, President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday responded to suggestions that U.S. intelligence agencies leaked unsubstantiated reports to the media about his relationship with Russia, calling it a "tremendous blot on their record if they did that."
Later in the article, it talks about spending time on cabinet picks and other activities:
Was anything factually incorrect? Was anything left out?
If they DID like him, wouldn't that also be a form of bias?
Last edited:
It's partly the tone. They know that most of the impact of an article is the headline and maybe the first paragraph or two.Here's the full article with context as posted on a local Fox TV affiliate site.
Combative Trump concedes Russia's role in election hacking
Opening his first news conference since the election, President-elect Donald Trump on Wednesday responded to suggestions that U.S. intelligence agencies leaked unsubstantiated reports to the media about his relationship with Russia, calling it a "tremendous blot on their record if they did that."www.fox29.com
Later in the article, it talks about spending time on cabinet picks and other activities:
Was anything factually incorrect? Was anything left out?
What was left out? That was about a decade ago. Can't say I remember!
The tone came from the press conference. A good writer is taught to capture the mood and tone of the event being covered, so the readers can feel like they were there. This isn't meant to be a police report. Even you have to admit he is a colorful president and doesn't follow protocol. That should be part of the reporting. If you go back to Teddy Roosevelt, you'll see a lot of similar coverage.
I'm pretty sure if I spent the time to dig up the reporting of the same press conference by a conservative paper, it would also have some of the same tone.
True too and a June Launch for RNN News we shall find out this week who is getting this affiliation along with WABC's World Wide News.Yes. Already been discussed in detail.
RNN Targets Ex-CBS News Radio Affiliates With June Launch
https://www.radioworld.com/tech-and-gear/products/rnn-to-launch-as-radio-news-option-for-u-s-stations https://radioink.com/2026/04/10/rnn-targets-ex-cbs-news-radio-affiliates-with-june-launch/ Note there is no confirmation on this that any Audacy owned stations will join this service. I seen...radiodiscussions.com
In fact you're the one who started that thread when that story came out last month. Whoops!
I hope it's OK to provide a link to another message board, but here's a post that I think helps support my prediction:
If a radio network reports only what the U.S. president says, particularly on controversial issues, without noting how critics respond to it, it is merely doing what news networks in Russia, Cuba, The Peoples' Republic of China, North Korea, and a whole host of other non-democratic countries are doing. And frankly, as either a democracy (as liberals, including yours truly, see it) or even a democratic republic (as traditional conservatives see the U.S.), I think that one should expect better of our media than to echo the U.S. president's words without comments from his critics, regardless of which party holds the White House.