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.
I would say in the days leading up to the Obama administration.
The news changed from fact-focused to feeling focused. Of course, if you didn't agree with their feelings about Becky Obama, you were tagged a racist. Lol. At that point, the divide between MSM and conservative media got CRAZY wide, and has remained ever since.
So many people in this thread seem convinced that before such-and-such a date, news coverage was news coverage only. The date varies from poster to poster, but everybody seems convinced that there was a time when opinions played virtually no part in "news" coverage.
Sorry, folks. The only thing I can say about that fallacy is that, maybe before the 1960s (pick your own date), we didn't realize we were listening to half opinion and half news, at best. And the things the publishers decided to leave out, were just as much opinion-driven as the things they decided to include. And after that date, we started to realize it, and started to complain about the percentage of "news" that was not really news.
But in fact, the newspapers published by Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine contained quite a lot of opinion as well as "just the facts". And I'm sure that printing all the way back to Johannes Gutenburg did the same. And even back when "publishing" was done with quill pens and lots of manuscript, in every language under the sun, the same was true, to greater or lesser effect.
If you think that before such-and-such a date, the news was "just the facts", you are simply mistaken. It never has been that way. We just naively thought it must have been... because we weren't really paying attention, and it was pleasant to think it was so.
In 1807 statesman Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter complaining about the misinformation in newspapers:
Quote:
Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day
Jefferson provocatively suggested the advantages of not reading the newspaper:
Quote:
I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.
Original source:Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, Date: June 11, 1807, Page 2 of 3, Source Collection: The Thomas Jefferson Papers at the Library of Congress, Series 1: General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Microfilm Reel: 038, (Accessed loc.gov on December 4, 2016) https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.03.../?sp=2&st=text
Local news is still news. They cover a variety of stories and tell you "who, what, why, when, and where" without a lot of spin and opinion.
CNN and Fox News started out reporting news, with field reporters also telling us "who, what, why, when and where".
The 24 hour news cycle was impossible to fill. It would take an army of reporters scouring the country to keep coming up with unique news coverage. They began to fill the 24 hour news cycle with opinion shows. These shows featured panels of pundits offering their opinions about the news stories covered during the peak hours during the 24 hour news cycle.
CNN and Fox gradually realized that it was cheaper and more profitable to cover fewer stories where they sent reporters out to remote sites, instead filling more airtime with guest pundits who analyzed the story instead of just giving us the details. Then things became politicized and the guests went from analysis to opinion and propaganda.
I don't remember when CNN or Fox moved from reporting to tabloid. Fox News didn't begin until almost Clinton's 2nd term.
I think around 2005-2010 give or take, is when the CNN and Fox jumped the shark and went tabloid, becoming opinion shows rather than reporting the news.
One America News began in 2013, and I remember that the big national news orgs were completely tabloid by then, with none of them simply reporting "who, what, when, where, and why". OAN did just that when they begain in 2013, getting back to basics. They basically followed CNN's original model.
Local news is still news. National news went full on tabloid opinion spin at least 15 years ago.
It seems like these days, it's all driven by clicks for views (i.e. profit from advertisers) or pushing an agenda with all these "opinion" pieces.
Ummm ... When haven't news sources been driving by ad revenue? When haven't news sources presented opinion pieces?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upminster-1
I give most "credit" to the declining education system, so "journalists" no longer seem to have much competence or any ethics or much objectivity.
There always have been and always will be good and bad journalists. Most journalists I know have no opinion about the stories they report on. They get an assignment, they contact their sources, they assemble the information gathered. It really is that simple.
But if you want to discuss the "declining education system", what about the inability that many people seem to have to distinguish between fact and opinion? How many times do we see on this very forum threads with a subject line stating a fact, only to open the link and read an opinion piece? Some pundit makes an opinion post on Twitter, and suddenly it's gospel to many?
I would say in the days leading up to the Obama administration.
The news changed from fact-focused to feeling focused. Of course, if you didn't agree with their feelings about Becky Obama, you were tagged a racist. Lol. At that point, the divide between MSM and conservative media got CRAZY wide, and has remained ever since.
I hope "leading up to Obama administration" includes the Bush era where the media flat out lied about WMD.
I hope "leading up to Obama administration" includes the Bush era where the media flat out lied about WMD.
The media didn`t invent and sell the WMD hoax. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the leading liars and the media only reports what those govt. officials say. It would be impossible to justify our ultra ridiculous War Dept. budget if we didn`t blow up a small country now and then so we choose the ones that we know can`t fight back.
The media didn`t invent and sell the WMD hoax. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the leading liars and the media only reports what those govt. officials say. It would be impossible to justify our ultra ridiculous War Dept. budget if we didn`t blow up a small country now and then so we choose the ones that we know can`t fight back.
They didn't invent it but they didn't do any investigative journalism to verify the claims of the liars in charge.
They have effectively become stenographers of the US state, the PR arm used to propagate lies to convince the public to back their wars. Noah Chomsky calls it manufacturing consent, which they are an integral part of.
When did news stop being news: When the networks moved the "News" department to the Entertainment division.
This old article from 1999 is very illuminating on the transition of "News" to "Entertainment". While this predates the current troubled state of politics and the nation, it is useful to see how the transformation started.
Unfortunately, the writer's conclusion was never realized: "If history holds true that audiences in the long run gravitate to quality, network aspirations will not be enough. The networks will need to take the risk and time to invest in quality."
This is a long article, but worth reading to understand: "The Transformation of Network News"
Yep. The last step was talk radio and the discovery of how you can keep people hooked with bias news and opinion mixed with news. Rush Limbaugh was pulling huge audiences to AM radio stations and AM radio was already dying at the time. He showed that a certain style of commentary could drive people to tune in and it was big enough to catch the attention of TV producers. Limbaugh show was 3-4 long and kept the audience tuned in which meant big money from advertisers, big money.
Fox News finally cracked the code when they took Limbaugh style, CNN 24 hour concept, and added the visual flair needed to capture attention so they stop and listen (breaking news flashed, constant alerts, bright flashy pop ups, women in short skirts, on and on).
It’s all about revenue via ads so the game is keeping you tuned in instead of informing you of news. The money interest broke it and its remained broken since. Now every story is Breaking and the news casters are damn near hyperventilating and providing dramatic flairs to constantly to hook and capture attention, and it works.
I hope "leading up to Obama administration" includes the Bush era where the media flat out lied about WMD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmagoo
The media didn`t invent and sell the WMD hoax. Rumsfeld and Cheney were the leading liars and ...
You are both wrong.
In the "Yellow Cake" incident, Joseph Wilson and the CIA were the culprits.
(Wilson told the CIA, and the Administration, that there was evidence Saddam was attempting to acquire yellow cake, and told the press the opposite.)
In the area of chemical WMD's, Saddam actually had some (but not much: we found some, and some got shipped to Syria, where they were used, several years later) and his constant attempts to "hide evidence that he was manufacturing" more gave our Intel Community reason to believe he was. It turned out, even he thought he had more than what he really had. It was Saddam's behavior that misled everyone, including himself.
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.
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.
