Are News Networks News Or Entertainment

[donhughesmusic]

This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

 

[noonereal]

Fox does not do news at all, they do propaganda. They also distinguish themselves by selling sex with the propaganda.

 

[Mycroft]

This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

They are all propaganda. The best you can do is filter the nonsense out and get the kernels of fact. Then you can make up your own mind.

 

[craig]

The news is news and the commentary and analysis is propaganda. Watch PBS or BBC news to know the difference.

 

[HIP56948]

Primary Money-Makers

 

[Mycroft]

The news is news and the commentary and analysis is propaganda. Watch PBS or BBC news to know the difference.

PBS presents plenty of propaganda.

 

[craig]

PBS presents plenty of propaganda.

In your reality.

 

[donhughesmusic]

They are all propaganda. The best you can do is filter the nonsense out and get the kernels of fact. Then you can make up your own mind.

PBS presents plenty of propaganda.

Again, I don't completely disagree with Mycroft. In a time of Covid, Ukraine invasion, hyper partisans, I can't disagree that news networks have become their own echo chambers.

Mycroft, anyone else,, a very serious question, no smart comments from me. How do you filter out the nonsense? What constitutes nonsense to you?

 

[noonereal]

PBS presents plenty of propaganda.

If you belive this, you have no idea what propaganda is.

Fox presents propaganda. No MSM outlet does.

Fact.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

News entertainment, better known as INFOTAINMENT.
And there's a reason why.

Back before cable (and satellite - pretty much the same thing, SUBSCRIBER TV) became ubiquitous, the Big Three operated their news depts as loss leaders and as a public service, NOT
as a profit oriented "business". The BUSINESS of television was prime time and daytime prime entertainment and that is what underwrote the news dept budgets.
Same with the network affiliate stations.

Stations and networks traded on the prestige of providing news as a public service and ratings grabber shows followed the news in prime time.
But news depts either lost a tiny bit, or broke even, or posted a tiny plus, and that was okay.
Thus news was free of market pressures, all they had to do was provide accurate and rational news coverage that Americans could trust.
They could tell viewers what they NEEDED to hear instead of what they WANT to hear.

The moment news got pressured to produce profit and superstar ratings everything went 180 degrees the other way.
If you don't tell viewers what they WANT to hear, they tune out, ratings drop and profit goes away, and news teams get fired and replaced with someone who WILL
tell people what they want to hear.

News today is a CONSUMER PRODUCT, not a public service, and until news returns to being a subsidized loss leader, that's what you will continue to get.
And you can thank Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes for the change. They were the pioneers of infotainment for profit.

 

[Mycroft]

Again, I don't completely disagree with Mycroft. In a time of Covid, Ukraine invasion, hyper partisans, I can't disagree that news networks have become their own echo chambers.

Mycroft, anyone else,, a very serious question, no smart comments from me. How do you filter out the nonsense? What constitutes nonsense to you?

I'll give you an example:

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan​

​

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan

The former president spoke in Washington Township in support of candidates for attorney general, secretary of state.

news.yahoo.com

​

The "fact" in that headline is that Trump said something about voter fraud, etc. The "nonsense"...the "propaganda"...is the bias-generated modifier, "false". If Yahoo News is just reporting facts, then they don't need to add their bias.​

​

So...in this headline, alone, I have to filter out the nonsense and decide if I'm interested in what Trump was saying at his rally. In this case, I'll likely just pass this news story by because it's certain the report, itself, will be chock full of nonsense and I don't want to go through the effort to wade through it all just to find the facts.​

​

Again, this is just one example. All of the news organizations...hell, all of the sources of news large or small...add their bias...their nonsense. I don't want to hear their opinion. I just want the facts.​

 

[craig]

I'll give you an example:

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan​

​

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan

The former president spoke in Washington Township in support of candidates for attorney general, secretary of state.

news.yahoo.com

​

The "fact" in that headline is that Trump said something about voter fraud, etc. The "nonsense"...the "propaganda"...is the bias-generated modifier, "false". If Yahoo News is just reporting facts, then they don't need to add their bias.​

​

So...in this headline, alone, I have to filter out the nonsense and decide if I'm interested in what Trump was saying at his rally. In this case, I'll likely just pass this news story by because it's certain the report, itself, will be chock full of nonsense and I don't want to go through the effort to wade through it all just to find the facts.​

​

Again, this is just one example. All of the news organizations...hell, all of the sources of news large or small...add their bias...their nonsense. I don't want to hear their opinion. I just want the facts.​

So if Trump had said the earth was flat, the reporter would report that as a fact?

 

[post]

News entertainment, better known as INFOTAINMENT.
And there's a reason why.

Back before cable (and satellite - pretty much the same thing, SUBSCRIBER TV) became ubiquitous, the Big Three operated their news depts as loss leaders and as a public service, NOT
as a profit oriented "business". The BUSINESS of television was prime time and daytime prime entertainment and that is what underwrote the news dept budgets.
Same with the network affiliate stations.

Stations and networks traded on the prestige of providing news as a public service and ratings grabber shows followed the news in prime time.
But news depts either lost a tiny bit, or broke even, or posted a tiny plus, and that was okay.
Thus news was free of market pressures, all they had to do was provide accurate and rational news coverage that Americans could trust.
They could tell viewers what they NEEDED to hear instead of what they WANT to hear.

The moment news got pressured to produce profit and superstar ratings everything went 180 degrees the other way.
If you don't tell viewers what they WANT to hear, they tune out, ratings drop and profit goes away, and news teams get fired and replaced with someone who WILL
tell people what they want to hear.

News today is a CONSUMER PRODUCT, not a public service, and until news returns to being a subsidized loss leader, that's what you will continue to get.
And you can thank Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes for the change. They were the pioneers of infotainment for profit.

I wish I was more in agreement with you on this.

Example :
Superficial bullshit intended to reinforce official conclusions. Four weeknights of "primetime content" attractive for advertising "reach".

CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report | Dan Rather

danratherjournalist.org

"..The idea of doing a long-format show about the Warren Report had been discussed between producer Leslie Midgley, CBS News division president Richard Salant, and reporter Daniel Schorr. The original idea was to put the Warren Report on trial, but the project evolved over several months into its final format. ...
The series was an enormous success, reaching more than 55 million U.S. homes, with an average rating for the four nights of 17.8, and more than 21 million people were estimated to have watched each night of the first two nights. The first and second nights had an average of 18.4 ratings and 39 shares. As with all shows dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy, it also received its fair share of letters disagreeing with the conclusion of the show.

The press was a bit more reserved, with Variety complaining the show was not unique, only routine coverage between soap, tobacco, and mouthwash spots, and bemoaning that CBS had not covered fresh turf. It praised, however, CBS’s tests and experiments but was disappointed by the conclusions drawn. The Los Angeles Times had similar complaints, noting that the apparent goal of the show—to assuage critics of the Warren Report—was not successful."

Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?: White, Stephen: 9780024898302: Amazon.com: Books

Should We Now Believe the Warren Report? [White, Stephen] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?

www.amazon.com

Should We Now Believe the Warren Report?​

books.google.com › books
Stephen White · 1968 · ‎Snippet view
A collection of material unearthed during the CBS investigation of events surrounding President Kennedy's assassination.

 

[Mycroft]

So if Trump had said the earth was flat, the reporter would report that as a fact?

He would report that that's what Trump said. No judgement included.

 

[craig]

He would report that that's what Trump said. No judgement included.

Then that would only be printed in The National Enquirer?

 

[Mycroft]

Then that would only be printed in The National Enquirer?

I don't know anything about The National Enquirer, but unfortunately, that kind of straight, unbiased reporting won't be in any of the propaganda news.

 

[craig]

I don't know anything about The National Enquirer, but unfortunately, that kind of straight, unbiased reporting won't be in any of the propaganda news.

Strait unbiased reporting is not a transcript of someone telling obvious lies.

 

[Mycroft]

Strait unbiased reporting is not a transcript of someone telling obvious lies.

It's not up to news reporters to determine that someone is lying based solely on their own bias. When news organizations do that, THEY are lying.

 

[AGENT J]

It's not up to news reporters to determine that someone is lying based solely on their own bias. When news organizations do that, THEY are lying.

wait wait wiat this is hilarious

so are "You" are claiming that If donnie says the earth is flat and 2+2= 386.4 and the news title says:
"donnie falsely says the earth is flat and 2+2= 386.4"

that reporters determining someone is lying solely on their own bias?

 

[jpevans]

I'll give you an example:

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan​

​

Trump hammers at false claims of voter fraud in return to Michigan

The former president spoke in Washington Township in support of candidates for attorney general, secretary of state.

news.yahoo.com

​

The "fact" in that headline is that Trump said something about voter fraud, etc. The "nonsense"...the "propaganda"...is the bias-generated modifier, "false". If Yahoo News is just reporting facts, then they don't need to add their bias.​

​

So...in this headline, alone, I have to filter out the nonsense and decide if I'm interested in what Trump was saying at his rally. In this case, I'll likely just pass this news story by because it's certain the report, itself, will be chock full of nonsense and I don't want to go through the effort to wade through it all just to find the facts.​

​

Again, this is just one example. All of the news organizations...hell, all of the sources of news large or small...add their bias...their nonsense. I don't want to hear their opinion. I just want the facts.​

The Fact is that claims of extensive voter fraud the MAGA Merch Man was talking about was False. This has been proven numerous times. Despite Drumpf's continued hammering at the false accusation. He is operating on the principle that if you repeat a lie often enough some people will believe it & disregard the evidence.

 

[jpevans]

There are problems with reporters who will just take a press release & repeat it with no further verification. I know that NSNBC will air a breaking story, with the disclaimer that NBC News has not verified the story, that has already been released by other outlets.
Another problem is the old, equal time argument. Sometimes a story doesn't have a valid other side. Climate change is an example, where they have to find some wingnut scientist who has an opposing view from 98% of scientists. There is equally a small % of people who will argue the Flat Earth Theory. They are not a valid "side" to the round globe theory.
Before Drumpf appropriated the term Fake News to mean shit he didn't want reported, it was coined to apply to Fox (small n) news, with good reason.
p.s. I vote Other, because they are not all the same & the choices available are all inclusive.

 

[Mycroft]

The Fact is that claims of extensive voter fraud the MAGA Merch Man was talking about was False. This has been proven numerous times.

This has not been proven.

Despite Drumpf's continued hammering at the false accusation. He is operating on the principle that if you repeat a lie often enough some people will believe it & disregard the evidence.

The people who continuously say "false" are the ones repeating a lie.

 

[code1211]

This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

Seem to be both.

 

[jpevans]

This has not been proven.


The people who continuously say "false" are the ones repeating a lie.

False...

 

[mrdeltoid]

This was brought up in another poll. Are news networks like FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc... news, entertainment, or similar to WWE, news entertainment?

Network news is entertainment as well. I remember the 15 minute news broadcasts as a kid. They were pretty much straight news back then. But when anchors became “ personalities “, that all changed.