A Giant Middle Finger right in the eye of CNN and Cable News

[Faramond]

Producer Fired for Blogging

[Primula Baggins]

They really, really don't get it at all, do they?

The people at the very top fondly remember the days when a household got maybe five TV channels, and news and information came from that and maybe a newspaper. It was pretty easy to control the messages then, and I think a lot of outlets did it unintentionally; everyone knew that decent people agreed on important matters, after all, and "different" people kept their heads down. So it wasn't really necessary to think about it.

We aren't even living on the same planet. This world is so different from that one that out of hundreds and thousands of science fiction stories and books written since 1926, not one came close to predicting it. It's going to be fun to watch what happens, not just with this story but with the whole narrative of news and information and opinion.

edit: typo

[solicitr]

For most of my lifetime, the Powers That Be in American journalism have forgotten, or pretended to forget, Chez' dad's line:"I knew full well that you couldn't avoid having opinions and viewpoints, but you never let them get in the way of your journalistic responsibility."

Ed Murrow had a POV, dammit. When he went after McCarthy he told the nation exactly what he was doing. Most larger cities had two (or more) newspapers, usually Democrat and Republican, and you knew what you were getting going in. Ernie Pyle never tried to be evenhanded in discussing the Germans and Japanese and never hesitated to write about "us" and "our boys."

Then something changed.

Suddenly the major news outlets decided that they were to assume the mantle of Metatron, to provide the Voice of Objectivity (or at least to pretend like hell they were). Unca Walt Cronkite perhaps spearheaded this move from 'that's how I see it' to 'that's the way it is,' but none of the major outlets, broadcast or print, was immune.

This was I think aided by the sudden appearance of university 'journalism schools' (how the ghosts of Mark Twain and Sinclair Lewis must have laughed!) and the enshrining of the 'ethical rule' that a journalist must never (appear to) have an opinion.

And of course now we get this. It's a natural outcome: in any marketplace including goods, political parties or ideas, monopolies *always* go bad. Only competition works.

To be honest I mind Fox' blatant bias much less than CBS' disguised one.

[Faramond]

The thing that gets me is this wasn't even fox news, which I know is as popular as a skunk's butt here. It was CNN!

Is there a fourth cable news network out there?

[Primula Baggins]

That's what's gone, soli: the intelligent exercise of judgment. That's why there's so much noise in the news. "Objectivity" and "equal time" mean that equal weight is given to both sides of a "controversy," and a "controversy" can be created by one crackpot at a school board meeting.

Sometimes it is possible to see that one side of such a controversy hasn't got a leg to stand on. These days, though, they'll get their views described in grave detail for exactly as long as is allowed for the views of, say, the U.S. National Academy of Science.

I agree that it's better to have the agenda out where it can be seen. It's becoming a world where the most important thing in news is understanding precisely where it's coming from, and looking at more than one source. People who get all their news from Fox News are not serving themselves well.

Edit: Hey, I'm no fan of CNN either! The journamalistic stylings of Glenn Beck. . . .

As a matter of fact, MSNBC ticks me off, too, with one or two exceptions you would have no problem guessing.

[solicitr]

However, conspiracy-theorists take note: the management paradigm in the CNN arm of the Corporate Media apparently is not actually 'how do we advance our nefarious aganda,' but rather 'how do we boost the ratings?'

The unending 'reportage' of Britney and Lindsay and Posh and Anna Nicole and Paris and on and on and on and on and on and on and on is no more a plot against the American mind than McDonald's is a plot against the American waistline- both are simple realizations that junk food sells.

[Ellienor]

The unending 'reportage' of Britney and Lindsay and Posh and Anna Nicole and Paris


Yeah, we gotta stop clicking on that stuff.

[yovargas]

(the political party in power being irrelevant incidentally; the job of the press is to maintain an adversarial relationship with the government at all times)

That's pretty much awesome.

[Dave_LF]

CNN's online edition is in the process of degenerating into a tabloid. Today's headline "Satellite Explodes Like Death Star" is a good example of why I barely take them seriously anymore.

[Primula Baggins]

That's the pitfall of news websites, I think. When CNN broadcasts the news, the ratings give them only a general idea of what people watched or didn't watch—what they liked or didn't like. But on a site they can note exactly how many people clicked on the latest Britney gossip compared to how many clicked to read an analysis of the president's budget, and they would be negligent in their duty to Time Warner stockholders (who are, of course, their most important constituency) if they didn't adjust their site content accordingly, hour to hour, minute to minute.

[Holbytla]

In my experience and in my opinion, corporations have altered the meaning and role of HR departments. In the name of equity, fairness, and "the good of the company", they have become a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition.

Corporations are utilizing them as an effective means of turning over employees in the name of standard practices where the human element has become meaningless and bottom lines and written rules have won the day.

[themary]

I try not to CNN if I can help it and this only confirms why. I loved the part about CNN scaring the general public about bird flu, shark attacks etc etc. It's so true that the news is only out for ratings and not to inform people of genuinely important information.

[kams]

And so where does one go for real news anymore?

[Primula Baggins]

PBS is still pretty good for TV news, and their news analysts tend to have IQs at or approaching three digits.

I also go to the BBC News online site.

Most newspapers are still good at news.

[solicitr]

NPR does a fairly good job. At least they go beyond soundbites.

[Holbytla]

The Boston Globe and Boston Herald are notorious for their respective bias towards their favored parties. Not to mention the NY Times.
I think the trick is to expose yourself to a multitude of different sources and read between the lines while taking everything with a grain of salt.

[Primula Baggins]

Holby's advice sounds good to me. Relying too much on any one news source, or any one category of web sites, can be bad for the brain.

Mr. Prim taught me a trick: for minor but interesting events, find a minor news source as close as possible to the event—the local paper, for example; they'll have actual reporters working on it and will provide a lot more detail than the AP.

But for major events, use a major news source as far as possible from the event. I've enjoyed reading coverage of the U.S. presidential race on major foreign news services (ones that are in English). They bring an interesting perspective and probably not a lot of partisan prejudice, and they tend to focus in on exactly the issues U.S. sources tend to skip over—foreign policy and trade, for example.

[yovargas]

Relying too much on any one news source...

99% of my news exposure comes from NPR...

...or any one category of web sites, can be bad for the brain.

...or HoF.





Frankly, I just don't care enough to bother with more. Life's time is limited, after all.

[axordil]

I take in, in no particular order:

My local rag
NPR
NYT
CS Monitor
Irish Times
various liberal agitprop sites

I've been known to surf through the TV network news sites in a pinch for a fast breaker. Having no real TV is occasionally inconvenient.

[Frelga]

I tend to go straight here or to Manwë, confident that by the time I hear about something, someone will have posted a link to a reliable source of information and probably explained what it all means in small words. I know what people's perspectives (not biases by any means, of course!) are and what expertise they bring to the discussion, and while the spread of opinions is wide enough to challenge me without driving me into a spitting rage. Well, on Manwë, sometimes...

And the best part is, someone is usually close enough to the event to give first- or at least reliable second-hand account.