CDZ OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM?

[Leo123]

Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

 

[Ringel05]

Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Conckite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

^

Obviously you've never studied history........

 

[Leo123]

Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Conckite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

^

No intelligent remark to post? This is the CDZ personal insults are not allowed. Your post is reported.

 

[depotoo]

Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Conckite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

^

No intelligent remark to post? This is the CDZ personal insults are not allowed. Your post is reported.

Correct your title so it isn’t closed. Can’t use all capitals.

 

[Pogo]

Was there ever any such thing? Today, we generally have more access to news and information as any time in human existence. Now, when I reflect back to the 'Big 3" broadcast news organizations (ABC, CBS, NBC) it becomes obvious that all the news was filtered through corporate editors who may or may not have been objective. Someone like Walter Cronkite (whose name reminds me of a bag of commie concrete ) was just parroting what was fed to him. In fact, there is no objectivity and never was. The most honest 'news' sources are the ones who declare their bias up front.

Cronkite was a reporter. And you have no basis to declare a negative on objectivity. That's relative. Always was, always will be.

And there's no such thing as "declared bias news". If it's biased, it isn't objective and therefore isn't news. Not that complex.

Cronkite by the way means "sickness" (krankheit). It would be the opposite of Gesundheit.

Those alphabet newscasts you refer to were put on for brownie points to the FCC, so that their stations, come license renewal time, could say "look, we ran all these newscasts" and whatever else (city council meeting, farm market report, PSAs) so as to fulfill their requirement to serve the public interest, a requirement for all broadcast licensees.

In those days they weren't looking for RATINGS because they didn't expect to make any money, in fact they expected to lose money on those newscasts and did -- they were subsidized by the Beverly Hillbillies and the rest of the inane pap that followed. And since they were not angling for ratings, they didn't have the incentive to pump up "if it bleeds it leads" sensationalist type news. Commercialism is what drives that. Fear and loathing SELLS. When money is the impetus, objectivity is pushed out the window.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Closed. Title is in all caps