Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
Old 01-24-2017, 09:31 PM
Location: Sunny South Florida
8,022 posts, read 4,704,343 times
Reputation: 10050


One of the reasons for this decline, IMO, is the networks deciding to monetize (or realize the commercial value of) their news divisions. They began obsessing on having the highest-rated newscast, to having the "most trusted" anchor, etc. as a selling point for their network as a whole. The news division should be focused on delivering balanced, in-depth news and not trying to earn money for the network by catering to the lowest common denominator to get higher ratings. When the networks started producing that spate of prime-time news magazines in the late 1980s (Dateline, PrimeTimeLive, etc.), they had to be "info-tainment" rather than hard news like 60 Minutes because the networks wanted cheaply produced primetime fare that would compete with traditional crime dramas and comedies. Once the anchors were touted as "celebrities" (primetime stars), there was even more pressure to get higher ratings, because they had to justify earning those "celebrity salaries".

In my own case, I stopped watching network newscasts when it became clear that they all had unspoken biases in their reporting. Since the anchors tend to have editorial control of some sort ("Managing Editor," etc.) it can't be said that they're blameless in the slanting of their scripts, since they write/approve their own material. If the anchor (the representative of their network in an evening newscast) can't be trusted to provide "straight" news reports, then I lose faith in the entire organization, which is what sent me to cable news channels, where I still get my news. The biases are still present (left and right), but at least they're up front about it and not maintaining the lie that they have no biases the way the network anchors do. It helps that cable networks each have multiple news anchors who give their own "take" on a story throughout the day, unlike the network newscasts where one opinion (the anchor's) is the sole point of view offered.

Old 01-25-2017, 08:17 AM
Location: La Costa, California
919 posts, read 783,291 times
Reputation: 2023
There is certainly some truth to what has been posted here about the major networks. But this "slanting" of the news pales in significance to the infowars, Brightbart, Wikileaks issues. And the fact that we have a new administration with an outright and admitted disregard for the truth is so unprecedented that I find this thread to be absolutely looney.
Old 01-25-2017, 09:20 AM
Location: Island of Misfit Toys
5,066 posts, read 2,842,441 times
Reputation: 4533
If by journalism you mean TV 'journalism' then it was always about eyes for money, especially in the 24/7 world. Grab a newspaper, and/or the top newspapers websites - you will find solid unbiased journalism. The idiot box will get you exactly that when it come to journalism.
Old 01-25-2017, 10:47 AM
Location: Vermont
11,754 posts, read 14,562,913 times
Reputation: 18497
Originally Posted by MyNameIsBellaMia View Post

Even now, days later, all they can talk about is crowd size and fashion. Pathetic beyond words.
You are aware that they talk about crowd size because Trump and Spicer won't stop lying about the size of the crowd, right? Trump is the one who chose to make it a story.
Old 01-25-2017, 12:18 PM
23,519 posts, read 69,907,878 times
Reputation: 48883
News, especially TV news, is designed to create viewers and advertising dollars. It will be biased to cater to that concept. In North Alabama the ONLY coverage of the 15,000 women marching in Nashville and 5,000 in Birmingham was on the least watched station at 10:30 PM for 2 minutes. My brother sent me a right-wing whinge about inauguration crowd size and I shut him down with a time lapse of it and a full detail of the 5PM 6PM and 10PM news shows here. Don't kid yourself for a minute that the offenses of bias in news coverage don't go both ways.

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned Hearst's influence to start the Spanish American war. This isn't new.
Old 01-25-2017, 12:43 PM
2,902 posts, read 1,956,496 times
Reputation: 3474
It starts at the top, it's made known to anchors and reporters what the agenda is at that particular network or cable station. They receive large paychecks, become know nationally, and become part of the 'club'. In other words, their egos are stroked to push the company agenda. To understand why the Big 3 networks are so left of center I think it's important to look at the men and women in charge. And of course Fox News is biased on the right.

My favorite anchor was John Chancellor at NBC Nightly News. No nonsense, direct news reporting. Sad what's become of that network's news division.
Old 01-25-2017, 03:34 PM
Location: on the edge of Sanity
14,268 posts, read 18,825,160 times
Reputation: 7982
I disagree that all news is biased. Some news is biased, especially the programs on political networks, but most of those hosts don't hide their feelings. We should be able to look at the news from a number of different angles and have enough intelligence to make our own decisions.

Last night I watched CNN which many Trump supporters call biased and left wing. There were at least 2 Trump supporters participating in the discussion. On one show all 3 pundits were Republicans who were defending Trump. I also enjoy watching PBS when there's a round table discussion because it's interesting to hear people with different viewpoints.

However, it's tough to defend outright lies, i.e., 5 million people voted illegally or inaugural crowds were the largest in history. If the President tweets something and then denies he ever said it, it's a good reporter's job to call him out on the inconsistencies of his statements. That isn't biased reporting at all. A society in which a public official can make a comment without question is not a democracy.

I think some of the viewers who call news biased are biased themselves, so they view anything contrary to their personal beliefs as fake or slanted.

However, I do agree that a lot of programs lean left or lean right, depending on the show's host, but most people who tune into those channels at those times are aware of their personal viewpoints.

Still, reporting news you don't like isn't "Fake News."
Old 01-25-2017, 03:58 PM
Location: Pittsburgh
29,627 posts, read 34,087,515 times
Reputation: 76611
Originally Posted by justNancy View Post

However, it's tough to defend outright lies, i.e., 5 million people voted illegally or inaugural crowds were the largest in history. If the President tweets something and then denies he ever said it, it's a good reporter's job to call him out on the inconsistencies of his statements. That isn't biased reporting at all. A society in which a public official can make a comment without question is not a democracy.
Exactly, and there are people going along with this kind of journalistic gaslighting, so that when a legitimate news source reports legitimate news, people are now calling it fake and untrustworthy.
Old 01-25-2017, 04:09 PM
2,411 posts, read 1,952,920 times
Reputation: 5786
I believe that the internet which provided people with a taste for and a means for 'instant gratification' started it all. Then journalist training began to be influenced by that and political influences brought by more and more 'liberal' teachers added to the decline of truth. Once the internet could provide things fast and furious, almost at the moment of occurrence, speculation flourished in the attempt to add some kind of text when nothing was really known. Speculation lead to people using it to lie for their own purposes.

Attention spans of everyone fell off considerably because of the web and apps, etc. as well. Journalists soon learned and took advantage of the fact that they could lie and then report the outrage in any way they wanted and by next week (I think maybe we are actually now down to 'tomorrow') something else would replace whatever they said anyway, they would not be chastised and no one would follow up to find out if there was any veracity at all to their quickly written (and soon to be almost illiterate and filled with PC language in many cases went unchecked by any editor) 'stories'. Along the way though .. impressions were formed in those who were schooled not to think for themselves .. which in turn reinforced the new approach to journalism, etc. as a valid one.

So .. down the rabbit hole we went.
Old 01-25-2017, 05:08 PM
Location: Richmond VA
6,870 posts, read 7,814,087 times
Reputation: 18193
Originally Posted by cfbs2691 View Post
It slowly started in the 80s and just got worse and worse.

I took a journalism class way back when and they drummed into our heads there was no room for adjectives and adverbs in news stories. Period.

Look where we are now... now "news" includes hidden ads as well!!
I went to J-school also. One of the reasons I did not pursue it as a career was because I didn't want to be unbiased.

I remember interviewing a woman at an anti-abortion event. She was wearing a LARGE rabbit fur coat. I was not getting anything useful out of her and finally asked her how many baby rabbits died for her coat. My photographer was shocked that I would be so rude. He ended up as a professional news producer. I did not. To me we were not reporting NEWS that people needed to hear. We were running around trying to find anything interesting enough to make a story out of. No one really needed my news story about the lame anti-abortion event. (poorly planned and poorly attended)

Of course media ownership and personal bias can impact the slant of news. and we glamorize every tidbit.

But what we are dealing with right now is a tidal wave of information. Few average citizens have the patience to vet their sources. My own daughter called me a few weeks ago shrieking about some great injustice she saw occur on a blurry phone video. When I started asking questions about the source, and the other points of view involved, she got annoyed with me in a big hurry. A meme with a made up quote can get a person in a lather....

I can't tell you the last time I sat and watched the TV news. If it isn't on NPR, I won't listen. Alas, I see plenty I should not see on the internet. I don't even bother to try to filter much of it anymore. If the subject comes up in conversation, I'll frequently point out the opposing viewpoint (I like to play devil's advocate, but sometimes I just want the info to be clear and factual), but for the most part, I just let it all flow past.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top