• 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

What's wrong with the media?

M

Morgan Wick

Guest
This is a thread for you to sound off on all the problems you have with the mainstream media and the way it reports the news. No problem is too obvious to list. It may sound redundant to say it doesn't hold a candle to the BBC or CBC, but list it anyway - but also try and get as specific as possible. Think about how and why. I'm trying to collect as many grievances as possible in one place.
 
Biggest complaint here: It's entertainment, not news. Ethical news practices respecting all parties involved, promoting diversity, eschewing bias, respecting a realistic news flow...all gone out the window in favor of legs and red-letter graphics.

When CNN shows a horse stuck in the mud and calls it "breaking news", or when Nancy Grace opens her show every night by yelling "breaking news" into the camera (only to air more year-old photos of "tot mom"), or when Julie Banderas shows up in a short skirt to read the news in a completely glowing-red room on the FNC set...that ain't news, folks. That's sensationalism and cheap ratings.

The news hole is bigger than ever before, with TV news done 50 different ways, 24 hours a day, on-air and online. What ultimately happens is the problem of prefabrication...stories of marginal news value being aired simply because they are available. What happens is a crossing of the invisible boundary between the reporters and the news. The reporters become the news.
 
Good Lord, I could go off on a 10 page rant about this topic! But, in the interest of not ticking off moderators and other readers - and in the spirit of the U.S. news media - I'll keep it [relatively] short and spare some detail. ::)

1. News reporting in this country seems to be done by people who somehow manage to provide us with rather shallow, one-dimensional reports. It's a chicken-and-egg scenario: they do it because the average Joe Dumba$$ viewer has no attention span, but Joe D. has no attention span any more due (in part) to the way the media have presented news and entertainment in the past 20 years;

2. Argue with me all you like, but the vast majority of journalists doing the reporting are politically left-leaning. And, those biases show up in their reporting. Time was that a real journalist (a la Cronkite, Brinkley, Huntley, Reasoner) did a good job of putting those personal biases aside. That wall has eroded to zero now. It started with Watergate (IMO) and has accelerated down the road to outright bias ever since. The clear elation at the results of the 2008 election versus the somber mode on Election Night 2004 provide an obvious example. Not to mention the present fawning over all things Obama. There was nothing like this in early 2001. Argue all you want, but newsrooms are overwhelmingly liberal places (I know this first-hand) and the average level of professionalism that reporters have (to keep it to themselves) has faded over the years. There is absolutely no way that you can tell me that Katie Couric, as an example, is a political moderate or conservative. She comes from a family of left-leaning people to the extent that her sister is the most liberal member of the Virginia House of Delegates. We also have Chris Cuomo at ABC and Chris Matthews at NBC to pick off some other low-hanging liberal fruit. Rarely do they do well in keeping the bias out of their reporting;

3. The level of depth in pretty much any given news report is just not there. News reporting on the major networks seems to be geared toward those with a 4th grade education;

4. It has become painfully obvious that, in the U.S. at least, journalism has become a refuge for nature's C students. Those hired by major networks and TV stations are clearly hired more for their looks and delivery than they are for their intellect or skill as an actual journalist. Again, this has been in the works for at least 20 years - but now we're seeing the fruits of this. After all, who is left to fill the shoes of the greats? A bunch of bubble-heads; and, finally,

5. The crossing of the line between news and entertainment. I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT WHO WON DANCING WITH THE STARS OR LAST NIGHT'S AMERICAN IDOL OR SURVIVOR ON THE NEWS! It's unprofessional as Hell and it's NOT news! You'll know that the four horsemen of the Apocalypse have mounted up when the BBC spends part of their evening newscast talking about this week's installment of Footballer's Wives or some such thing. Yet NBC, ABC and CBS do this all the time. It erodes the reporter's level of gravitas and makes his whole operation look like nothing more than an upgrade to ET.

I could list numerous other gripes, but will leave it here - as these are the main ones.
 
I'll see the previous posters and raise:

1. TV 'news' - few things tell me the news 'director' doesn't know his job better than sending out a mobile unit to capture the breathless blow-dried newsidiot telling me it's raining outside by standing in the rain. Or, if the story is a trial, standing in front of the courthouse. Or, if the story is about gas prices, standing in front of a gas station. Or......well, you get the idea. Here in Phoenix we regularly are treated to reporters driving 125 miles to Flagstaff to breathlessly tell us it is snowing in the mountains!

2. TV (mostly) - interviewing a man-in-the-street on a topic they clearly don't understand as part of the story. Related: taking emails/twitters as comments on news.

3. TV (again) - repeating lead stories that just aired on the national news as part of the 'local' news.
 
Op-Ed pieces disguised as "news". If you need a specific example, how about Nancy Grace railroading the Duke Lacrosse boys' alleged "rape" case as bonafide fact nightly for weeks before anyone spent one day before the court. It was a slam dunk the Duke team raped a woman because they were middle-class white boys and the 'victim' was black.

As we all find out later the 'rape' was a complete fabrication of a sick mind but nothing was every said about that and no apology has ever been made to the boys that were unfairly judged and prosecuted nightly on a nationally seen program.

Sickening.
 
Does anyone think our media is slanted too much twoards the female viewer? I mean, why do we need 2 hours of Today show to explain marriage and wedding tips, and cooking, and how to tell a guy he's not that into you? I think the 4 hours is wasted on that. It seems that the 30 min network news shows may still have their place because at least they have much less fluff than cable news channels.
 
jsu5381m said:
Does anyone think our media is slanted too much twoards the female viewer? I mean, why do we need 2 hours of Today show to explain marriage and wedding tips, and cooking, and how to tell a guy he's not that into you?

Those aren't 'news' shows. They are entertainment with news segments being only a hook.
 
Robnoxious said:
Op-Ed pieces disguised as "news". If you need a specific example, how about Nancy Grace railroading the Duke Lacrosse boys' alleged "rape" case as bonafide fact nightly for weeks before anyone spent one day before the court. It was a slam dunk the Duke team raped a woman because they were middle-class white boys and the 'victim' was black.

As we all find out later the 'rape' was a complete fabrication of a sick mind but nothing was every said about that and no apology has ever been made to the boys that were unfairly judged and prosecuted nightly on a nationally seen program.

Sickening.

Yes it is sickening but I believe the lack of a PUBLIC apology from CNN/Grace could be due to the fear of creating copycats. Kinda of what happened back in the late 80's when some girl told one of those heavy metal rock magazines that she was "raped and beaten" by the band Motley Crue. To make a long story short the story was not only NOT true but rather just some sick sexual fantasy where she wrote in her diary about how she WANTED to be raped and beaten by Motley Crue. I dont remember if there was ever any apology from the girl to the band or not but of course it seemed within no time other girls were claiming the same thing ( the fantasy of wanting to be raped by a rock band ) only now with other bands like AC/DC, Poison, Guns & Roses, Ratt, Dokken, Cinderella, Trixter, and so forth...MTV and the "metal media" wisely stopped doing such stories.

My biggest beef with the media? The economy and how they are reporting it. Makes me wonder if the media really wants a "great depression"?
 
**The blurred line between actual news, entertainment, and advertising.

**Focusing upon what's cheap to cover instead of whats substantive, both from a monetary standpoint and an intellectual one. Sexy ideological punditry has become more attractive than actual news investigation, which simultaneously explains Fox News' popularity and other news channels' de-evolution.

**Consolidated corporate ownership of news content and content providers. There is more of a demonstrable bias related to selling people soap and sedans than there is a bias tied to political and social ideology.

**Lack of racial and cultural diversity amongst hired hosts, reporters, and featured commentators (though this has been improving out of necessity). It took the potential-to-actual election of an African-American POTUS for many news shows to reach out for opinions and insight from folks with a few extra skin chemicals.

**A lack of competitors to ESPN, and better separation amongst what's entertainment and what's news coverage inside ESPN's family of networks.

**Rigid objectivity--providing two sides, or an 'opposition' to a story when 1) its more complicated than just two sides and 2) one or more of those sides is clearly dealing in specious or false information. Here we are in 2009, and there are groups that would still have people believe that Christopher Columbus discovered America, cigarette smoking isn't linked to cancer, global warming/climate change is a hoax, and that abstinence-only education is the most effective way of preventing unwanted pregnancies and STD contraction. (And that's despite historical, scientific, and empirical research de-bunking all of them.)

**That newspapers weren't quicker to use the web to complement their superior news-gathering rather than having the web eat them alive.
 
jsu5381m said:
Is Fox sports not a good competitor to ESPN?

Not really. Fox Sports Net is a group of separate regional sports networks with some national content. ESPN and its siblings are national networks with some regional content. The FSN networks emphasize their own local territories. ESPN emphasizes east coast national sports coverage.
 
Morgan Wick said:
This is a thread for you to sound off on all the problems you have with the mainstream media and the way it reports the news.

MSM is garbage and should not be trusted! (In the USA)

Its filtered,you only hear what they want you to know/think.....

If you want WHATS REALLY HAPPENING IN THE WORLD,ya gotta goto outside news sources!
 
Now, you know the reason that I watch very little television anymore. I try to watch the Fox43 morning news each morning. Every week, one of the features is what happened on American Idol. ( That's news?????????) I have never seen American Idol, and I never will. I do not want to hear what happened on the show. I do not consider that news.
 
For me, it's the heavy fixation on and obsession with completely irrelevant "news" stories for weeks and weeks. The most recent one has been Susan Boyles. And of course, as a couple people here said, the lack of objectivity in reporting, such as with Obama.

I also wouldn't agree that the CBC is a shining example of a great news source, although it is better than many American sources. CBC does get into Britney Spears gossip, and they have been fixated on the H1N1 virus even more than CNN some of the time.
 
US television news has gone from being outstanding to being just absolutely horrible -- and I would pin that on corporate ownership and consolidation in the industry.

The big three broadcast TV networks used to each have a very impressive network of foreign news bureaus from which they were able to cover international stories. That's all been dismantled in order to save money.

Cable news has also taken a measure drop in quality over the years -- I recently saw a recording of the first hour that CNN ran, way back in 1981, and was amazed at how much more substance there was to the news coverage versus the fluff and junk that fill CNN's airtime today.

Other factors in the decline include having in-studio interview and opinion programs passing themselves off as real news. It's a lot cheaper to invite a couple pundits into a studio to argue about current issues than it is to actually report on the news, and it seems to get good ratings, so that's what we get.

And then there's the whole celebrity gossip overkill -- it seems like tabloid news went mainstream during the OJ Simpson trial, and American TV news has never recovered.
 
I won't go into the "what's wrong" since so many people above me have adequately described what's wrong. I will offer an observation on why the media is the way it is.

Local news used to consist of 3 stations in a market offering news in the morning (maybe 6, but usually 6:30am) noon, 5, 6 and 10pm.
National news was on at 5:30pm. That was it. Along comes CNN in 1980 and within a decade they had pretty much single-handedly created the 24 hour news cycle. Networks had expanded to mornings in the mid 70s. (okay, yes.. the Today show was the first in the 50s.. but it was one show on one network and news was not exactly the focal point of the program for quite some time) ABC jumped in to the late night hours in the early 80s with Nightline. The networks and station owners were starting to see there was a thirst for more news. So they added shows. Along comes Fox in the mid 80s and more stations started doing local news. Then more national news channels came along in the mid 90s. The operative word is "more." There were more shows on more stations at more times requiring a lot more people.

So stations and networks were looking for people to fill all these jobs. People they would have turned down a few years before were getting hired right off the bat. The added competition created a need to stand out in the crowd. Pretty faces make people stop when they're clicking through the channels. Flashy graphics screaming BREAKING NEWS!, the latest celebrity buzz, fires, horse rescues, etc. make people stop too.

As station and network ownership changed and became more of an investment for their owners than a business they wanted to run, the need to keep costs low and profits high far outweighed any desire to put on a good substantive news product. Can you do a national newscast without a foreign bureau in Moscow, London, Beijing, etc? Yes, you can. You can cover those areas with stringers and video from other networks that you develop strategic partnerships with. Is that as good as having your own people in bureaus in those places? No, it's not even close.. but it is cheaper.
 
Its all hype and no substance. American Idol is never news (unless the studio blows up).

Local news, you could give me all the pertinent information that you fill 2 hours with, in 5 minutes. They spend more time telling you what is "coming up" than actually reporting on it. And a lot of that is network pieces, not local.

Also, news does not have to always be visual just because it is on TV. So many important stories are cut to 2 or 3 lines because there isn't any exciting video to go with it, but we can get 5 minutes on a random car crash because there are people involved willing to cry about it on tv. Honestly,, a family just died in a car crash, why would you ask "how does this make you feel?".

but besides all the bad grammer, stupid questions, stories that barely belong on the gossip page, the worst is HAPPY TALK. Every story does not need a comment from the other anchor. I was taught, one story ends,, you start the next,, there doesn't have to be bad banter between. It would be less annoying if they actually had something to say, but most of these anchors are as sharp as teflon.
 
One big issue is the prevalence of "corporate group think" that has become predominate in the media. In other words, you get these Italian suit wearing slime who sit in offices and worry more about the stock price than integrity. This is how decisions get made about "promoting the network across as many platforms as possible," which results in the likes of AI, Dancing With the Stars, Survivor, etc. being promoted during newscasts as 'news.' It gets even sleazier, with the likes of NBC (Universal), Fox (Fox) and ABC (Disney) promoting movies and programming on behalf of sister companies' studios.

And yes, with so many hours of news to fill during a 24-hour news cycle, the temptation to sneak corporate cross-promotion into news division programming is too much for the little corporate kiss-butts to pass up.

As for today's journalists, well that's just a sign of the times. Priorities are simply different now. In the old days, real journalists were hired for their talent in reporting and delivering the news and had to have solid credentials when it came to being wordsmiths. Many came from radio and/or newspapers. Hard news guys. Now, the priorities have changed as part of an evolving process that's taken 30 years to develop. Priority one is to look good on TV. Number two is to be smooth and personable. If you have one and two down, the rest isn't worried about. So we now feature a bunch of D students, many of whom really don't have a background in journalism. Those that do are often still average or below-average students. But they look good. Over time, they've worked their way up and many run things now. The old concepts of news gathering as being a higher calling are long, long gone.

It's also how personal biases seem to be more prevalent in news reporting now. The level of professionalism that it takes for a reporter/anchor to transcend such biases is simply beyond most folks in the business now. It's become a lost art. And, with the advent of news channels to suit all tastes, few seem to try very hard anymore. Just enough so as not to alienate a potential interview target. But not much more.
 
landtuna said:
jsu5381m said:
Does anyone think our media is slanted too much twoards the female viewer? I mean, why do we need 2 hours of Today show to explain marriage and wedding tips, and cooking, and how to tell a guy he's not that into you?

Those aren't 'news' shows. They are entertainment with news segments being only a hook.
That's why you see so many local stations producing their own entertainment show (Normally airing just after the network morning show & just before the morning daytime show(s)).

I think KTVT 11 in the DFW area is the only one doing a show in the afternoon (Though I anticipate this will no longer be the case once Guiding Light finally moves on to soap opera heaven this fall).

Cheers :D
 
BRNout said:
Priority one is to look good on TV. Number two is to be smooth and personable.

Then how do you explain the street reporters on Phoenix TV (neither good-looking, smooth or personable.....ok, I'll give them #3). ::)

I'll suggest, at least in this market, they get their street reporters right out of ASU's Cronkite School of Journalism - and I'm thinking they should be much more professional than they are. Still, the major fault with the quality of local TV news rests with the News Director(s) and not the happy faces on the streets.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom