When it comes to politics is traditional media on life support?

[AzogtheDefiler]

Wow, I would agree with your first sentence, but I think that train left the station a long time ago. The Movie Network was prophetic. Howard Beale seems relatively sedate compared to Carlson or Maddow.

You see, back in the day, it was expected that the networks would run their News Divisions at a loss. It was the job of Beverly Hillbillies to sell corn flakes, the News was there to keep people informed as a public service. If you look at what has happened in the last 40 years, they spend less on reporters and more on personalities. Why spend 10 million hiring 100 correspondents bringing us the news when you can spend $10 on a talking head who brings in the ratings.

Which brings us to the disease that is Donald Trump. In 2016, they gave Trump air time because he was entertaining, screaming like a fucking maniac about Mexican rapists. Why give Jeb Bush talking about Common Core any time, that shit is boring. We got to sell those corn flakes. And that follow that up with five talking heads arguing over whether or not Mexicans are all rapists.



Sure I do. I voted Republican from 1980 until 2008. I campaigned for Reagan in College. Then I realized the GOP got hijacked by the Religious Zealots, the Gun fetishists, and the Libertarian Children. There were also things that went on in my personal life that changed my views on a lot of issues, but I won't go into that.

The fact is, Republicans today despise McCain, Romney, George W. Bush, and George H. Bush. The only guy they still have a somewhat favorable view of is Reagan, and only then because they distort what Reagan actually did. Shit, he gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens!!! That would never fly today. He put moderates on SCOTUS.



Guy, I would call you the biggest troll on this board. Your avatar is a literal Troll.

I don't say anything on here that I don't sincerely believe. I wonder if you can say the same.

1) I still want news not news entertainment. If you want to be news entertainment then label yourself as such.

2) Trump won the EC and the popular vote. Live with it

3) Avatar is an orc not a troll

 

[Blaster]

The MSM is like another arm of the Democrat party.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The media’s job is to report the news and keep the Govt and its agencies accountable on the federal, state and local levels. Yet as we have seen the media now takes sides. Trump labeled them “Fake News”. Viewership is down and many are now getting their news from podcasts, Internet and apps like X.

With most networks working in line with the the Democratic Party and of course papers like WAPO, Boston Globe and NYT the narrative is highly biased. Meanwhile Fox and NYP lean conservative or toward the GOP. Although Fox will have Democrats and their opinions on there like those of Juan Williams, Jessica Tarlov and Harold Ford Jr. I do not see the same level on MSNBC, ABC, CBS and CNN for example.

As such, younger people will just tune them out IMO.

Can traditional media survive? Probably but they need to again start reporting the news and not make it a narrative aka news entertainment and shill for one side.

Agree or Disagree?

Cable News Fact Sheet

In 2022, both prime-time and daytime cable news audiences increased for Fox News but decreased for CNN, MSNBC and Newsmax.

www.pewresearch.org

They went all in with "Biden is functional and Kamala is skilled" and fucked themselves over

Trump had 75MM views of his interview on X, and 40MM?? with Rogan. No one needs ABC's bullshit any more

Elon will make CNN Great Again

 

[hadit]

People do not choose their media source based on credibility anymore.

They choose media that tells them what they want to hear.

Media that has adjusted to this reality has seen enormous success. Media that hasn’t adjusted is suffering.

As always, the consumer drives the ship, they just don't know they do. Only when a straight-arrow, non-sensationalist news outlet (one thinks of CSPAN that just plants a camera in the halls of Congress and broadcasts whatever it picks up) starts taking viewers away from the sensationalists will that change. Unfortunately, the American people have proven they don't want real news, they want, as you said, to hear their biases validated. There are bright spots on the horizon, as in some podcasters who have developed a reputation for fairness and allowing their guests to speak unfiltered and can still make money, but traditional media has become ad revenue driven and think they need to sensationalize the carp out of everything. Add that to the 24/7 news cycle that seeks to fill every available minute with content, and you get what we see. When the news was given once or twice a day in one-hour chunks and you had a news anchor you trusted, it was considered valuable. When it literally doesn't matter when you turn on the news because they have their stories on a loop and it literally doesn't matter which of the alphabet stations you pick because they all give the same stories from the same perspective and it doesn't matter which talking head is talking because they all say the same things, there's no value in it. Add to that blatant bias (Just check the negative stories about TRUMP! vs the positive stories about Harris) and credibility goes out the window.

One remembers the talking heads all discovering the word "gravitas" at the same time. Rush played a montage of them all saying a word they had never said before, probably had never seen or heard before, but repeating it like they understood it and it was important.

 

[Marener]

As always, the consumer drives the ship, they just don't know they do. Only when a straight-arrow, non-sensationalist news outlet (one thinks of CSPAN that just plants a camera in the halls of Congress and broadcasts whatever it picks up) starts taking viewers away from the sensationalists will that change. Unfortunately, the American people have proven they don't want real news, they want, as you said, to hear their biases validated. There are bright spots on the horizon, as in some podcasters who have developed a reputation for fairness and allowing their guests to speak unfiltered and can still make money, but traditional media has become ad revenue driven and think they need to sensationalize the carp out of everything. Add that to the 24/7 news cycle that seeks to fill every available minute with content, and you get what we see. When the news was given once or twice a day in one-hour chunks and you had a news anchor you trusted, it was considered valuable. When it literally doesn't matter when you turn on the news because they have their stories on a loop and it literally doesn't matter which of the alphabet stations you pick because they all give the same stories from the same perspective and it doesn't matter which talking head is talking because they all say the same things, there's no value in it. Add to that blatant bias (Just check the negative stories about TRUMP! vs the positive stories about Harris) and credibility goes out the window.

One remembers the talking heads all discovering the word "gravitas" at the same time. Rush played a montage of them all saying a word they had never said before, probably had never seen or heard before, but repeating it like they understood it and it was important.

The role of the news media shouldn’t be to let both sides simply tell their story, it should be to figure out what is true.

The saying goes: A thought related to the journalistic common practice of quoting experts: “If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f*cking window and find out which is true”

I would say that the reason news anchors became less trustworthy wasn’t so much related to them being dishonest (although you probably can point to some instances of them being wrong, which is inevitable since they’re humans) but rather the proliferation of alternative media with little interest in honesty.

If someone is dishonest but telling you what you want to hear, and you believe them, the honest media personality who is telling you the truth r you don’t want to hear will wind up seeming unreliable.

 

[hadit]

The role of the news media shouldn’t be to let both sides simply tell their story, it should be to figure out what is true.

The saying goes: A thought related to the journalistic common practice of quoting experts: “If someone says it’s raining, and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the f*cking window and find out which is true”

I would say that the reason news anchors became less trustworthy wasn’t so much related to them being dishonest (although you probably can point to some instances of them being wrong, which is inevitable since they’re humans) but rather the proliferation of alternative media with little interest in honesty.

If someone is dishonest but telling you what you want to hear, and you believe them, the honest media personality who is telling you the truth r you don’t want to hear will wind up seeming unreliable.

One of the reasons the talking heads are considered unreliable is they simply parrot the same stories from the same sources. They don't do their own checking or investigating to be sure the story they're about to tell is true or not, or even if their biased slant on the story should be adjusted so as to not be cheerleading. That's why I go back to "gravitas", when the talking heads all discovered the same new word at the same time and mindlessly regurgitated it, hoping to further the narrative that Bush wasn't serious while Cheney was. Then, you have the desperate desire to be the first to report something. A prime example of this is when Dan Blather got so excited thinking he was finally going to be the News Anchor That Brought Down a Republican President that he did a story hoping to influence the election that ended up costing him his career.

 

[JoeB131]

1) I still want news not news entertainment. If you want to be news entertainment then label yourself as such.

So the argument was too complicated for you, was it?

2) Trump won the EC and the popular vote. Live with it

So what? Please don't confuse frustration with inflation for endorsement of your crazy ideas. The winner on Tuesday was Apathy, not conservatism.

Bush made this same mistake in 2004. It didn't go well for him.

3) Avatar is an orc not a troll

Orc, Troll, Goblin, Kobold... all the same thing except for the Hit Points!

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So the argument was too complicated for you, was it?

No


So what? Please don't confuse frustration with inflation for endorsement of your crazy ideas. The winner on Tuesday was Apathy, not conservatism.

No

Bush made this same mistake in 2004. It didn't go well for him.

No

Orc, Troll, Goblin, Kobold... all the same thing except for the Hit Points!

No

 

[Marener]

One of the reasons the talking heads are considered unreliable is they simply parrot the same stories from the same sources. They don't do their own checking or investigating to be sure the story they're about to tell is true or not, or even if their biased slant on the story should be adjusted so as to not be cheerleading. That's why I go back to "gravitas", when the talking heads all discovered the same new word at the same time and mindlessly regurgitated it, hoping to further the narrative that Bush wasn't serious while Cheney was. Then, you have the desperate desire to be the first to report something. A prime example of this is when Dan Blather got so excited thinking he was finally going to be the News Anchor That Brought Down a Republican President that he did a story hoping to influence the election that ended up costing him his career.

I think it’s telling that to find the most relevant example of traditional news media blowing it, you went back decades. It’s a rare thing and resulted in his dismissal.

The talking heads that just parrot the same story in unison exist on both sides. The problem is that they’re considered reliable by their political tribe. Sean Hannity can (and has) reported stories that are totally false that he never looked into with no repercussions. His base still considers him perfectly reliable.

In some regards, it doesn’t matter what traditional news media does when most people are looking for a reason to find them unreliable.

 

[hadit]

I think it’s telling that to find the most relevant example of traditional news media blowing it, you went back decades. It’s a rare thing and resulted in his dismissal.

It was a glaring example of what's happening today. The difference is, no one cares today, and the talking heads are not held to any standard of objectivity. In fact, they seem to be rewarded by the amount of outrage they can generate.

The talking heads that just parrot the same story in unison exist on both sides. The problem is that they’re considered reliable by their political tribe. Sean Hannity can (and has) reported stories that are totally false that he never looked into with no repercussions. His base still considers him perfectly reliable.

In some regards, it doesn’t matter what traditional news media does when most people are looking for a reason to find them unreliable.

Hannity is not what I would consider the traditional news media. He's not a journalist or a reporter, he's someone who gives his opinion on things. We don't hold them to the same standard of objectivity because we EXPECT them to give their opinions. Dan Blather blew it because he allowed his opinion to outweigh truth and reality.

I mean, no one with an above room temperature IQ considers Rachel Maddow to be a journalist or reporter, or to even expect her to get the story right. She's just spouting her opinion.