Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree14Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 24th, 2014, 12:54 AM   #41
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
You're clueless as usual;

Quote:
. Does Anyone Really Care Whether CNN Covers World News Anymore?

The other day I was channel surfing for news of the coup in Egypt. CNN was airing mostly wall-to-wall coverage of the George Zimmerman trial, with only short breaks for reports from Cairo, so I switched to my Roku box and watched Al Jazeera English.

I didn't think much about this, but in the hothouse atmosphere of the interwebs nothing in the media world goes unexamined, and sure enough a few days later I came upon dueling posts by NYU prof/press critic Jay Rosen and columnist Jack Shafer. Rosen, for his part, essentially throws up his hands and declares that CNN, with its 24/7 Zimmerman coverage, has gotten so bad he's not even going to even bother critiquing it anymore. By bad, Rosen means tabloid, populist and sensational. "CNN is making its priorities clear when it sticks with the trial while world events are breaking," he writes.

I'm not unsympathetic to Rosen. I've done my share of carping about cable TV news in the past. But we live in a world where Fox News dominates the cable news landscape, in part because of its steady diet of right-wing red meat but also because of its tabloid sensibility.

So it's no surprise that CNN, which has been floundering in the ratings, might steer that way, though I'm not sure that's what's happening. I think CNN still sees itself as the place to turn for the big breaking news story of the day, but if the network's execs think a murder trial in Florida will attract more viewers than a coup in Cairo, it's not the first time they've bet on there being meager demand for foreign news, and it won't be the last.

Whether that's good or bad depends in part on what kind of news consumer you are. Highbrow news consumers want more coverage of international events, the economy, geopolitics and the like. Their middlebrow counterparts want crime coverage, sex and celebrity scandals and, yes, murder trials. Rosen, a college professor, obviously falls into the highbrow camp, and so he wants a CNN that suits his tastes.

Shafer, on the other hand, echoes some arguments that I've made before, namely that in a media universe as diverse as the one we now inhabit, it no longer makes much sense to complain about what's on this channel or that channel, when, with the push of a button or the click of a mouse, you can bring up news, highbrow and otherwise, from literally every corner of the globe.

So while it's Rosen's right to criticize CNN on its merits, when he complains about a lack of foreign news he sounds like he's still living in 1993. He says he doesn't have CNN International in his cable package, but what about the BBC News channel? What about the "PBS Newshour" or the BBC newscasts that PBS carries? And have I mentioned the world wide web? Al Jazeera streams online (I assume Rosen has an Internet connection) as does BBC Radio. Newspaper websites from around the world are available with a mouse-click. With a Roku box you can get still more streaming foreign news networks. And Al Jazeera America will soon be on-air.

(But be careful what you wish for. I don't know where I fall on the highbrow-middlebrow spectrum, but after watching about 15 minutes of Al Jazeera's coup coverage I switched to something else. Al Jazeera is top-heavy with long talking-head segments and, to my mind, a bit dreary. I don't know if the network plans to tailor its U.S. channel to American tastes, but they might want to adopt a snappier pace. Who knows, they might even try covering a few murder trials.)

I'm not saying international news isn't important. As a journalism professor I constantly stress to students the importance of understanding what's going in the world. Nor am I arguing that CNN shouldn't be held to high standards, or that judgments about quality in cases like these are purely subjective. What I am saying is that most people (especially young people) don't particularly care whether they get their news, foreign or otherwise, from CNN or Facebook or The New York Times. (I'm old-school enough to still counsel my students, first and foremost, to read newspapers.) I certainly didn't feel put out at having to take a few seconds to switch on my Roku box to watch Al Jazeera.

More to the point, CNN is, like all U.S. networks, a ratings-driven business that is struggling at a time when, on cable at least, opinion generally trumps reporting in popularity by a wide margin. CNN was the country's first cable news network and as such has a certain history and legacy behind it, but it's not the BBC and it never was. So debates about whether it is doing the kind of high-minded journalism some would wish for not only fall on deaf ears; they're arguments from an era that's already gone.
http://journalism.about.com/od/trend...ws-Anymore.htm
Camelot is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 01:06 AM   #42
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
I dont guess you watch CNN International.

once again, CAMELOT shows why he is THE KING OF THE ROUND TABLE OF THE UNINFORMED.

CNN International - CNN.com

You can also read about international news on CNNI.. OMG that is why you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.

Heck I did not even have to use Google, or Bing, or Yahoo..
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 01:09 AM   #43
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
You need to settle on a position for once. First you and your lackeys make the ridiculous statement that the government decides what gets on the news and now you point to an abundance of international news. You're so full of it.
Camelot is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 01:27 AM   #44
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,805
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
You need to settle on a position for once. First you and your lackeys make the ridiculous statement that the government decides what gets on the news and now you point to an abundance of international news. You're so full of it.
You really don't understand anything do you.. you are absolutly clueless, HILLARY AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING FOR MONITORS IN THE NEWS ROOMS to control what is relesed .. no one said it was happening yet.. The but that HAS HAPPENED IN VENUZELA under Chavez, and has continued under his successor?



so once again YOU SHOW THE WORLD why you are the KING OF THE ROUNDTABLE OF THE UNINFORMED.


Remember the thread about this???


Quote:
The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom


By AJIT PAI

Feb. 10, 2014 7:26 p.m. ET

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of "critical information" such as the "environment" and "economic opportunities," that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their "news philosophy" and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC's queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC's now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and '70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC's example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency's collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber's bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn't matter more than anyone else's merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.


TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 01:28 AM   #45
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,805
This is what happens when you have no freedom of the press and no 2nd amendment.. Venuzela and Ukraine.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 01:42 AM   #46
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
Off topic again. This thread is about why the news media covers little international news. There is another thread for your FAUX topic. The news media chases ratings and the American people want entertainment news. I made the case for that. You obfuscate as usual.
Camelot is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 04:11 AM   #47
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 35,805
Dumb butt, IT IS NOT OFF TOPIC

YOU ARE NOT A MODERATOR.. DID YOU NOT READ THE RULES, OF HOW TO REPORT OFF TOPIC POSTS.



oh wait I am talking to an idiot. why would he read the new rules that have been posted.


IT IS NOT OFF TOPIC BECAUSE I AM COMPARING OUR MEDIA TO THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED MEDIA IN VENEZUELA, AND NOTING THE FCC'S PUSH TO TAKE CONTROL OVER NEWS CONTENT HERE. WHICH IS WHAT CHEVEZ DID IN VZ.
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 04:13 AM   #48
Talent on loan from god
 
Camelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ohio
Posts: 27,345
The media in Venezuela is not the topic of this thread. Webguy wanted to know why the American media has not covered the upheaval in Venezuela.
Camelot is offline  
Old February 24th, 2014, 05:36 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
imaginethat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Western Slope, Colorado
Posts: 59,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by TNVolunteer73 View Post
This is what happens when you have no freedom of the press and no 2nd amendment.. Venuzela and Ukraine.
Things are looking pretty good in Ukraine, perhaps because, unlike Venezuela, and Russia, the press remained free throughout the revolution....
imaginethat is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
black, news, venezuela



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Venezuela's New Labour Law: The Best Mother's Day Gift Mrs. CJ Parker Current Events 21 May 17th, 2013 08:09 PM
Obama Delivers Bad News To Black Leaders About Expected Budget Cuts npr Current Events 1 February 13th, 2011 08:05 PM
Obama Gives Black Leaders Bad News On Likely Budget Cuts npr Current Events 0 February 9th, 2011 03:38 PM
Venezuela's fiery Chavez to speak at U.N. CNN Current Events 2 September 24th, 2009 09:57 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.