And then there's this: 2003's Best of Notable Quotables
- Thread starter Mo2vation
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
mofosaurus
Guest
Geez......talk about right wing propaganda:hiding:
NJDiveGirl
Guest
must be good - I cant access it - too many people on the website!!!
mofosaurus
Guest
Rupert Murdoch (sp?) has several business MO's and one of them is this
he tries to create news services (newspapers now television) that has a niche
RM to that end accquired FOX and purposely created a right wing orented news service because it was an unrepresented market
a common theory of right wing politics is that the "media" is left wing (See R.M. Nixon, "They're not gonna have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.")
CBS News was at one time the most respected news organization in the US. The News division prided itself on fair and accurate reporting promienetly symbolized by Walter Cronkite
In the 80's and into the 90's the networks news divisions underwent a change in which profitablity became emphasized. As a result news reporting became more sensational.
This sensational approach to news reporting fits the RM business plans well
By using sensational reporting methods and appealing to the right wing minded viewers RM has a constant viewership that makes the Fox news division profitable
Leslie Stahl I believe was referring to Fox and their business model that targets right wing viewers
While some may not belive it, the major networks do not target a political audience the way Fox does thats why LS said CBS doesn't have biased reporters - because thats not their business plan. It is not something they are trying to do and in fact a reporter's credibilty is considered lost when they reveal a bias
he tries to create news services (newspapers now television) that has a niche
RM to that end accquired FOX and purposely created a right wing orented news service because it was an unrepresented market
a common theory of right wing politics is that the "media" is left wing (See R.M. Nixon, "They're not gonna have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore.")
CBS News was at one time the most respected news organization in the US. The News division prided itself on fair and accurate reporting promienetly symbolized by Walter Cronkite
In the 80's and into the 90's the networks news divisions underwent a change in which profitablity became emphasized. As a result news reporting became more sensational.
This sensational approach to news reporting fits the RM business plans well
By using sensational reporting methods and appealing to the right wing minded viewers RM has a constant viewership that makes the Fox news division profitable
Leslie Stahl I believe was referring to Fox and their business model that targets right wing viewers
While some may not belive it, the major networks do not target a political audience the way Fox does thats why LS said CBS doesn't have biased reporters - because thats not their business plan. It is not something they are trying to do and in fact a reporter's credibilty is considered lost when they reveal a bias
OP
This is getting interesting, my friend.
I don't buy it. What does that mean, anyway? "One of the most respected news organizations..." By the time they air, these guys read copy for stories I've already been through in the morning, in the afternoon and on the way home.
As for a news group being there to simply "do the news", it simply isn't so. Their job is to sell advertising.
Its fantasyland to believe that the rest of the line up will float the news department, and the news group will go on its boring fair and unbiased way...somehow righteously rising above the din of clamoring for a prime demo to simply "report the news." That's leftover thinking form the 70's - before cable and the web.
You can't simply report the news. You have to sell the news - just like you have to sell everything else on TV. You can't support it without attracting an audience - next stop PBS, NPR, AM radio and that thrilling lineup.
You are going to see major turnover this year and next with the traditional evening news 60+ YO anchors moving on and magazine style newscasts moving in. Nobody needs to wait until the once mighty "evening news" comes on anymore - storys are a day old by the time they get to the evening news, and you've heard them 3, 4, or 5 times already.
The recent Sadam story is the classic example. Not one of the major print outlets had it (don't even get me started on the waste of space newspapers are these days...) and TV was hours behind the web. Its a different world and these fossles and their "all news all the time" formula are going to dry up and quickly blow away.
Of course, this is one reporter's opinion....
I don't buy it. What does that mean, anyway? "One of the most respected news organizations..." By the time they air, these guys read copy for stories I've already been through in the morning, in the afternoon and on the way home.
As for a news group being there to simply "do the news", it simply isn't so. Their job is to sell advertising.
Its fantasyland to believe that the rest of the line up will float the news department, and the news group will go on its boring fair and unbiased way...somehow righteously rising above the din of clamoring for a prime demo to simply "report the news." That's leftover thinking form the 70's - before cable and the web.
You can't simply report the news. You have to sell the news - just like you have to sell everything else on TV. You can't support it without attracting an audience - next stop PBS, NPR, AM radio and that thrilling lineup.
You are going to see major turnover this year and next with the traditional evening news 60+ YO anchors moving on and magazine style newscasts moving in. Nobody needs to wait until the once mighty "evening news" comes on anymore - storys are a day old by the time they get to the evening news, and you've heard them 3, 4, or 5 times already.
The recent Sadam story is the classic example. Not one of the major print outlets had it (don't even get me started on the waste of space newspapers are these days...) and TV was hours behind the web. Its a different world and these fossles and their "all news all the time" formula are going to dry up and quickly blow away.
Of course, this is one reporter's opinion....
mofosaurus
Guest
"What does that mean anyway? "One of the most respected news organizations...""
During the 40's and 50's the biggest name reporter was Edward R. Murrow, and he worked for CBS. EM was respected and trusted and was especially well known for his radio broadcasts describing the blitz of London. Its hard to imagine today that the public trusted so completely a news reporter.
After Murrow passed, Walter Cronkite took on the mantle of the most trusted man in America. Cronkite, as CBS lead anchor, was especially well known for his non-partisan delivery. Cronkite's and CBS News was considered beyond repoach.
"As for a news group being there to simply "do the news", it simply isn't so. Their job is to sell advertising."
Well yes and no. The news corporations do have a money motive but their broadcast license (remember we the people OWN the broadcast waves) requires them to have a news portion. Thats why the news division was considered a "public trust" for so long
"You can't simply report the news. You have to sell the news"
I think Randolph Hearst would be comfortable with that sentiment
"don't even get me started on the waste of space newspapers are these days...) and TV was hours behind the web. Its a different world and these fossles and their "all news all the time" formula are going to dry up and quickly blow away."
smoke signals-> drums-> town cryer-> horse and ship delivered mail-> newspapers-> radio-> television-> Internet-> ?
Yes we are in the middle of a paradigm shift. At every major shift in the speed of news dissemination a changing of the guard happens. Some survive others perish. But remember radio didn't disappear when TV became dominant so maybe TV won't either?
During the 40's and 50's the biggest name reporter was Edward R. Murrow, and he worked for CBS. EM was respected and trusted and was especially well known for his radio broadcasts describing the blitz of London. Its hard to imagine today that the public trusted so completely a news reporter.
After Murrow passed, Walter Cronkite took on the mantle of the most trusted man in America. Cronkite, as CBS lead anchor, was especially well known for his non-partisan delivery. Cronkite's and CBS News was considered beyond repoach.
"As for a news group being there to simply "do the news", it simply isn't so. Their job is to sell advertising."
Well yes and no. The news corporations do have a money motive but their broadcast license (remember we the people OWN the broadcast waves) requires them to have a news portion. Thats why the news division was considered a "public trust" for so long
"You can't simply report the news. You have to sell the news"
I think Randolph Hearst would be comfortable with that sentiment
"don't even get me started on the waste of space newspapers are these days...) and TV was hours behind the web. Its a different world and these fossles and their "all news all the time" formula are going to dry up and quickly blow away."
smoke signals-> drums-> town cryer-> horse and ship delivered mail-> newspapers-> radio-> television-> Internet-> ?
Yes we are in the middle of a paradigm shift. At every major shift in the speed of news dissemination a changing of the guard happens. Some survive others perish. But remember radio didn't disappear when TV became dominant so maybe TV won't either?
OP
mofosaurus:
But radio adapted - it became specialized. It moved from entertainment (picture family gathered 'round the VOX) to a source of information. News cycles decreased to about 18 - 20 minutes (about the time of an average commute or so...) Radio today serves one niche (grant me the broad, but accurate brush stroke for this, please): Info in your car. Essentially nobody listens to radio while sitting at home. You put it on while on the way to work, and on the way back. Unless you're in LA. Radio sucks here, so its CDs.
TV will always be here - but it will continue to evolve more into entertainment (hence the hybrid news magazine format.) People will go to the web or to radio (morning drive) for news. The only real "news" left on TV is when they break into your sitcom for a "special report." Even CNN (the last real recent "news" addition) these days is two parts news, one part entertainment.
The definition of news and the Public Trust argument has also lost its original intent. When the Howard Stern Show (in which moments of genius occasionally interrupt it's inane potty humor), an entertainment show by all intents and purposes, can wrap itsself in the "news" banner, and have that hold up in a court of law (the recent political hoopla) - well, the news and the public trust argument just doesn't ring true to me.
As to Cronkite and Murrow - irrelevant fossils. Murrow is dead and Cronkite gets propped up and rolled out for meaningless anniversary specials and when CBS wants to solicit Dynokrite to bash someone else's coverage of an issue. He's the poster child for the "golden age of broadcasting" and continues to milk the "most credible man in America" nonsense. I appreciate these guy's contribution to the "golden age of TV", I guess. I'm 43, and I can't even remotely relate to these guys or the "golden age." I mean, next stop Red Skelton.... please. Turn the page.
Anyway - this has been fun. I won't throw another blast up as I don't want to get to completely nutty with this. But its been fun. You know I got nothing but love for you Mofo. Your serve, buddy.
Ken
PS: Glad to see you got your Avatar dialed in!
mofosaurus
Guest
I like KROQ
Similar threads
