Decline of legitmate news

fpla83 · Almost a regular Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 40 Gender:

Why when I turn on any news station all I hear about for hours upon hours is the Scott Peterson trial? Why I ask WHY. There are far more important stories to be covered i.e. the Ukraine, the Oil for Food Scandal, Soldiers being court-martialed for "stealing" army equipment, the ongoing crisis in Fallujah, Rumsfeld's disgusting reply to troops in Kuwait. The list goes on and on and on. These are the topics which Americans should be concerned with however, for some reason, we are all too preoccupied with what some nutjob did in somehwere in California to even care or notice these issues. Not to be offensive but the Scott Peterson trial is hardly newsworthy, this kind of malevolence occurs frequently in equal and even greater degrees. I find it frustrating to the point where watching the news on TV has become an inane activity. Have we as Americans become so ignorant as to let this pass as legitimate journalism? I don't need to know what is going to happen to Scott Peterson I need to know what Bush is doing to fix the equipment situation in Iraq or when the "back-door draft" will finally be recognized and abolished. This is not to say that the Scott Peterson case is wholly unnewsworthy as certain issues such as the killing of an unborn child and the implication of the death penalty are key issues in society however, the case does not deserve to be covered for hours upon hours by "experts" offering nothing but opinions and rhetoric. This has to stop. I am appalled at the way in which news stations are conducting themselves. To be even more clear I am directing this at CNN since it should already be apparent that Fox News is loaded with republican nonsense. Yes that's right I'm addressing CNN, "the world's leader in news." Well I beg to differ these days.

Dissident Heart · Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:27 am Post subject: Legitimacy and Democracy Now!

If you are looking for legitimacy in journalism, news that is worthy of it's name, then I suggest you spend some time with Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!

Quote:
Democracy Now! is a national, daily, independent, award-winning news program airing on over 300 stations in North America.Pioneering the largest public media collaboration in the U.S., Democracy Now! is broadcast on Pacifica, community, and National Public Radio stations, public access cable television stations, satellite television (on Free Speech TV, channel 9415 of the DISH Network), shortwave radio and the internet.

The program is hosted by award-winning journalists Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez and produced out of the Downtown Community Television Center, a community media center in New York City’s Chinatown.

Democracy Now!'s War and Peace Report provides our audience with access to people and perspectives rarely heard in the U.S.corporate-sponsored media, including independent and international journalists, ordinary people from around the world who are directly affected by U.S. foreign policy, grassroots leaders and peace activists, artists, academics and independent analysts. In addition, the War and Peace Report hosts real debates - debates between people who substantially disagree, such as between the White House or the Pentagon spokespeople on the one hand, and grassroots activists on the other.

New stations are adding Democracy Now! to their programming schedules all the time, and there are several movements going on around the country right now to bring Democracy Now! to new communities.

WHY INDEPENDENT MEDIA ?

For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.

But the last two decades have seen unprecedented corporate media consolidation. The U.S. media was already fairly homogenous in the early 80s: some fifty media conglomerates dominated all media outlets, including television, radio, newspapers, magazines, music, publishing and film. In the year 2000, just six corporations dominated the U.S. media.

In addition, corporate media outlets in the U.S. are legally responsible to their shareholders to maximize profits.

And U.S. “public” media outlets accept funding from major corporations, as well as from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Every Corporation for Public Broadcasting board member is appointed by the White House and confirmed by the Senate.

Democracy Now! is funded entirely through contributions from listeners, viewers, and foundations. We do not accept advertisers, donations from corporations, or donations from governments. This allows us to maintain our independence.

Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 12/14/04 11:27 am

jjacobs43 · Experienced Joined: 24 Sep 2004 Posts: 111 Gender:

Quote:
Why when I turn on any news station all I hear about for hours upon hours is the Scott Peterson trial? Why I ask WHY. There are far more important stories to be covered i.e. the Ukraine, the Oil for Food Scandal, Soldiers being court-martialed for "stealing" army equipment, the ongoing crisis in Fallujah, Rumsfeld's disgusting reply to troops in Kuwait.

I can't tell you how much I agree. I'm to the point where I can't stand to here the name Scott Peterson. I don't want my time wasted with every little detail about his life. I just don't care!

Obviously, the majority of Americans must be more interested in stories like this than what is going on in the world and I think it's a very dangerous trend. Our government can get away with an awful lot these days and have it go totally unnoticed by the average American which only encourages the powerful to push the limits.

Quote:
If you are looking for legitimacy in journalism, news that is worthy of it's name, then I suggest you spend some time with Amy Goodman at Democracy Now!

This forum introduced me to this site and it does seem like a very good site to follow. Unfortunately, I think that most Americans are going to stick with the gossip of Scott Peterson.

fpla83 · Almost a regular Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 40 Gender:

thanks for the tip, I'll check it out.

pctacitus · Senior Joined: 28 Feb 2003 Posts: 354 Gender:

Some of the best news in America is put out by the Wall Street Journal. I was having a conversation with my father and he and agree that often the best reporting is done by presenting the information to the audience and letting them decide for themselves. The WSJ does this really well with business, and because the business information takes up few staff to gather compared to "bleeding leading" stories, the WSJ can concentrate alot of reprters on hard news and select from among their reports. One thing he noticed was that newspapers used to carry the full text of important speeches in them, a practice I would like to see return. That practice, which the New York Times used to do, was the main reason they called themselves the newspaper of record.

Doug Larson: “The cat could very well be man's best friend but would never stoop to admitting it."

MadArchitect · Posted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject: Re: Decline of legitmate news

The answer to the original question would seem to lie in the convergence of the methods and aims of news media with those of entertainment media, particularly with the phenomenon of "reality television". Runaway Bride, Missing in Aruba, Abducted Child, Popstar Scandal -- any one of these could be the title of next season's disgustingly popular reality television show, and the televised news networks have merely pre-empted the entertainment divisions by catching them happening in "real life". Sadly, the phenomenon has spread to the print media at well, but newspapers and magazines at least have the spatial-temporal leisure to devote some print to current events of some cultural, economic and political import. All of that is getting shifted further and further to the back pages, but it is, at least, still there. CNN, MSNBC and FoxNews are increasingly devoid of stories that have any real social or political impact on all but a limited portion of its constiuency. The rest of their ratings are achieved by playing on emotion and a sense of drama, fine things in the context of an art, but not to mingled with an appreciation of the impact of current events.

Ripley46 · Getting comfortable Joined: 06 Jun 2005 Posts: 9 Gender:

Thank God for the internet with all of it's valuable news sources ! There are still some places left for the serious minded and news oriented person to learn what's happening. I'm convinced we're witnessing the demise of the network news (another Thank God) with all of their bias reporting. Unfortunately, they seem driven purely by the ratings game and will pander to whichever market draws the most viewers...who is evidently the tabloid crowd/market which also reflects nighttime viewship in regards to the reality TV shows....it's a bit like wondering why on Earth a baseball player is paid 3 million dollars but yet if examined more closely one would see the market place eagerly supporting this paycheck...people will always pay the price of admission...the advertisers then trip over themselves to be in the same place...Legitimate news is in the process of being reborn I believe and currently we're in the transistion period.
We're so much better off though compared to being fed nightly doses of B.S. by Walter, Chet and David in the 60's & 70's!

Ripley

MadArchitect · Posted: Wed Aug 03, 2005 5:13 pm Post subject: Re: Decline of legitmate news

Oh, I doubt we'll see the demise of network news any time soon. Nor do I know why you'd make such a prediction when CNN has had such continued success, prompting the birth of FoxNews and MSNBC.

I think the question of why people continue to watch network news is in part answered once you entertain the idea that they're not really looking for news in the sense that we sometimes seem to mean the word. Most people aren't turning to CNN or ABCNews for informed debate, challenges to their ideology, or a complex understanding of their world. I'd hesitate to reduce it to a single motivation, but I think it's probably safe to say that some people turn to network news for rhetorical ammunition, some for confirmation of their prejudices and preconceptions, some for entertainment, and some merely to keep up with the demands of "polite" society. For some it's merely a "two-minutes hate", a catharsis after a day of built up tension. For some it builds tension, giving them the sort of emotional and social energy needed to perform their chosen tasks. For some, it's a way of staying connected to what they perceive as reality -- the acute penetration of tragedy into a life that is so routine and mundane that we sometimes think it unreal.

It is, I think, a complex phenomenon, but there is little doubt in my mind that the news outlets we're criticising serve some vitally felt purpose in our society. The question is whether or not we think it's the one that ought to be served.

Ripley46 · Getting comfortable Joined: 06 Jun 2005 Posts: 9 Gender:

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer. By network news I am referring to ABC, NBC, and CBS only. The 3 major broadcasting corporations over the past 30 some years. Channels such as CNN, MSNBC and FOX are regarded as cable news. So there is a difference. By the demise of network news, one only has to look at the ever declining numbers to see what is happening there. According to recent polling data, many viewers of the network news broadcasts are of the older generation (seniors) (as one can also tell by the type of commercials) and those caught up in the habit of viewing the standard 6:30 news after dinner.. in otherwords, those brought up without a choice.
With viewership on the decline for network news that looks like it's demise to me....


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT