How We Get News/Information
It always seemed to me that the old time television news reporters had tremendous respect for newspaper reporters. Now, am I saying that television reporters don’t have the same respect for newspaper reporters today? Not really, as I’m sure many do, but there is an ongoing debate about how television news personnel, radio news and many bloggers read newspaper/magazine stories, simply refashion these stories in their own words, then broadcast or publish them without any compensation to the news organizations that gathered the original information, or even an acknowledgement of such. * From what I understand, one of the problems is, that so many television networks scaled back on their news operations, that now they are not the same “news gathering” organizations that they once were, so they often rely upon “the wire services” and published articles in newspapers and magazines. At one time, the television networks had news rooms all over the country, and indeed, even all over the world. Now, the networks often rely upon their affiliate local stations to provide reports from various parts of the country. That’s why you may see a local reporter from your area on the network or cable news at times. With communications what they are now, that makes sense, and it saves the networks money.
Two other entities made there own foray into providing information to the public via television; PBS (=Public Broadcasting System), once known more generically as “educational television,” began broadcast of the “McNeil/Lehrer Report,” “Washington-Week In Review,” and even business news programs. Then along came C-Span, which actually allowed Americans to watch their elected representatives at work in Congress; first in the House, then later also with a separate station for the Senate. C-Span also had interviews and other political information when Congress was not in session.
The early 1980s brought a major dose of change to the news business, as Ted Turner brought CNN (=Cable News Network) to cable television. As America gradually got wired into cable television, CNN grew more and more popular, and other cable stations with news type programs sprung up, too. More and more, easy news access was available to us 24 hours a day, and with that 24 hours of news came stations desperate to keep us tuned in with any and all sorts of….ahh…”news.” Not only that, but there came to be stations devoted to just business news, or to the weather, or to sports; all once considered to be parts of any single news program, just as they still are in most local news shows. There also came to be shows that seemed to be “news shows,” but which offered up really a good deal of opinion and entertainment. This eventually brought us to where we are now, shows that mix news, entertainment, and opinion, ** although I’m not sure these items are necessarily in that order. Sorting out what is news and what is opinion is not always easily accomplished. In the early 1980s, CNN introduced “Crossfire,” a political discussion show, featuring a conservative on one side of a particular issue, and a liberal on the other side. The two “combatants” were expected to have different viewpoints, and rarely did I see them in agreement. The question I always had was, do these folks really have this wide divide on EVERYTHING? I didn’t believe so, as I saw at least some of it as “forced.” More and more current events programs began to follow something of this basic format, with a segment devoted to discussion of varying points of view on any given number of subjects offered up by reporters and columnists. The public can now pick from any number of these “talk/discussion” shows on a variety of channels, but again, are these shows more “opinion/entertainment” than “information?” In my opinion, a definite “YES!”
Some of these type shows took on a more “ideological” point of view, and later, Rupert Murdock, the very conservative Australian owner of several news sources established “Fox News,” a cable station. Former Republican political strategist and media consultant, Roger Ailes, was put in charge of the station. The station’s tag line became, “Fair and balanced,” but of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While the station had an obvious tilt toward conservative views, it wasn’t outrageous, and I often watched certain shows on “Fox News.” Hey, you don’t have to agree with them. Don’t like it, don’t watch it, but getting a variety of opinions doesn’t scare me. In fact, I would argue that we have become so “politically and ideologically” specialized in how we get our information, that this is at least partially why the country is so polarized. Too many Americans watch, listen, or read only the things that confirm their own basic beliefs about a subject, not things that make them THINK or QUESTION those beliefs. More recently, in my opinion, “Fox” has had a tendency to go over the top on some issues, and “PERHAPS” has even been involved in helping to organize recent protests.*** Do they have that right? Certainly, but “fair and balanced?” They can’t have it both ways. Just my opinion, but the station seems to have also given a much more substantial voice to very far rightwing views.
I’d guess back in the earlier 1970s, Phil Donahue had a show that presented all sorts of talk/interviews. Often, but not always, his shows were about politics. Phil Donahue falls on the left of the political spectrum, and some would say, far left. I watched his shows, too, but I’ve got to admit, especially by the early to mid 1980s, he started airing some strange stuff, not only political in nature, and some folks with some way out views, both rightwing and leftwing. This is America, and these folks are entitled to their opinions, but to give them a public forum is not my idea of being a responsible program. (I can hear the civil libertarians howling!) If I remember right, old Phil, who is from here in Cleveland, would more or less say that he felt Americans needed to know about these various fringe groups, but the problem is, in my opinion, who out there in television land is watching with their own unstable minds? ****After a while, I lost interest in his show, mainly because of this type of nonsense. My point is, both left and right have their extremes.
To be continued… (A word history is below the notes)
* The print media also complain, with good reason, in my opinion, that bloggers could at least offer up a link to the newspaper or magazine website, or to the actual article. Advertising rates for websites are set by how many visits are made to that site. If you have a business of your own, and you want to advertise online, you would want to know how many people actually go to a particular media website, on average, in any given period of time, and therefore, how many people might see your ad. When people just essentially copy a story or column, and then publish it on their own, without a link to where they got the story, that site gets zilch for their efforts. If it is a news story, the company had to pay a reporter or reporters and assistants to get the detail of that particular story.
** News programs always had some small element of entertainment to them, just as I mentioned that the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” often ended with a humorous story, but these were separate stories, and easily understood as “entertainment” by members of the public, unless of course, you were one of those folks listening to the news and trying to learn to play bridge from the newspaper at the same time.
*** I saw a clip of a recent protest rally, where “supposedly,” and I want to emphasize that, a woman involved with Fox News was egging the crowd on. It “seems” that when she realized that someone was filming her actions, she hurriedly ducked out of the picture.
**** I know that “Hitler analogies" get overused, but I’ll dare to be trite. In 1923, Hitler was the leader of a two bit political movement that was little known outside of the German state of Bavaria (southern Germany). His failed attempt to seize the Bavarian state government ended up paying him big benefits. He was put on trial, where his extreme nationalist views were given a public forum, and these views found an audience of anxious Germans, even supposedly with the presiding judge, who gave Hitler a light sentence. The future dictator spent only about a year in prison, and a rather comfy prison at that. So comfy that he actually wrote most of his famous book, “Mein Kampf” while in that prison. He was even allowed to “dictate” (no pun intended!) the book to associates who were permitted into him. Don’t forget, he tried to OVERTHROW the state government, by force!!!
WORD HISTORY:
Thrive-This word came to English from Old Norse (a North Germanic language) "thrifask" during the 13th Century. The Old Norse meaning was "to grasp to oneself;" thus, came the meaning "to prosper." The Norse word seems to have gone back to "thrifa," which meant "to grasp, clutch or seize." Modern North Germanic languages have forms of the word: Swedish has "trivas," and Danish has "trives;" both meaning "to thrive, to flourish." Unfortunately, all sources I checked cannot carry the word back further in history, so where North Germanic got it, is still unknown.
Two other entities made there own foray into providing information to the public via television; PBS (=Public Broadcasting System), once known more generically as “educational television,” began broadcast of the “McNeil/Lehrer Report,” “Washington-Week In Review,” and even business news programs. Then along came C-Span, which actually allowed Americans to watch their elected representatives at work in Congress; first in the House, then later also with a separate station for the Senate. C-Span also had interviews and other political information when Congress was not in session.
The early 1980s brought a major dose of change to the news business, as Ted Turner brought CNN (=Cable News Network) to cable television. As America gradually got wired into cable television, CNN grew more and more popular, and other cable stations with news type programs sprung up, too. More and more, easy news access was available to us 24 hours a day, and with that 24 hours of news came stations desperate to keep us tuned in with any and all sorts of….ahh…”news.” Not only that, but there came to be stations devoted to just business news, or to the weather, or to sports; all once considered to be parts of any single news program, just as they still are in most local news shows. There also came to be shows that seemed to be “news shows,” but which offered up really a good deal of opinion and entertainment. This eventually brought us to where we are now, shows that mix news, entertainment, and opinion, ** although I’m not sure these items are necessarily in that order. Sorting out what is news and what is opinion is not always easily accomplished. In the early 1980s, CNN introduced “Crossfire,” a political discussion show, featuring a conservative on one side of a particular issue, and a liberal on the other side. The two “combatants” were expected to have different viewpoints, and rarely did I see them in agreement. The question I always had was, do these folks really have this wide divide on EVERYTHING? I didn’t believe so, as I saw at least some of it as “forced.” More and more current events programs began to follow something of this basic format, with a segment devoted to discussion of varying points of view on any given number of subjects offered up by reporters and columnists. The public can now pick from any number of these “talk/discussion” shows on a variety of channels, but again, are these shows more “opinion/entertainment” than “information?” In my opinion, a definite “YES!”
Some of these type shows took on a more “ideological” point of view, and later, Rupert Murdock, the very conservative Australian owner of several news sources established “Fox News,” a cable station. Former Republican political strategist and media consultant, Roger Ailes, was put in charge of the station. The station’s tag line became, “Fair and balanced,” but of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. While the station had an obvious tilt toward conservative views, it wasn’t outrageous, and I often watched certain shows on “Fox News.” Hey, you don’t have to agree with them. Don’t like it, don’t watch it, but getting a variety of opinions doesn’t scare me. In fact, I would argue that we have become so “politically and ideologically” specialized in how we get our information, that this is at least partially why the country is so polarized. Too many Americans watch, listen, or read only the things that confirm their own basic beliefs about a subject, not things that make them THINK or QUESTION those beliefs. More recently, in my opinion, “Fox” has had a tendency to go over the top on some issues, and “PERHAPS” has even been involved in helping to organize recent protests.*** Do they have that right? Certainly, but “fair and balanced?” They can’t have it both ways. Just my opinion, but the station seems to have also given a much more substantial voice to very far rightwing views.
I’d guess back in the earlier 1970s, Phil Donahue had a show that presented all sorts of talk/interviews. Often, but not always, his shows were about politics. Phil Donahue falls on the left of the political spectrum, and some would say, far left. I watched his shows, too, but I’ve got to admit, especially by the early to mid 1980s, he started airing some strange stuff, not only political in nature, and some folks with some way out views, both rightwing and leftwing. This is America, and these folks are entitled to their opinions, but to give them a public forum is not my idea of being a responsible program. (I can hear the civil libertarians howling!) If I remember right, old Phil, who is from here in Cleveland, would more or less say that he felt Americans needed to know about these various fringe groups, but the problem is, in my opinion, who out there in television land is watching with their own unstable minds? ****After a while, I lost interest in his show, mainly because of this type of nonsense. My point is, both left and right have their extremes.
To be continued… (A word history is below the notes)
* The print media also complain, with good reason, in my opinion, that bloggers could at least offer up a link to the newspaper or magazine website, or to the actual article. Advertising rates for websites are set by how many visits are made to that site. If you have a business of your own, and you want to advertise online, you would want to know how many people actually go to a particular media website, on average, in any given period of time, and therefore, how many people might see your ad. When people just essentially copy a story or column, and then publish it on their own, without a link to where they got the story, that site gets zilch for their efforts. If it is a news story, the company had to pay a reporter or reporters and assistants to get the detail of that particular story.
** News programs always had some small element of entertainment to them, just as I mentioned that the “Huntley/Brinkley Report” often ended with a humorous story, but these were separate stories, and easily understood as “entertainment” by members of the public, unless of course, you were one of those folks listening to the news and trying to learn to play bridge from the newspaper at the same time.
*** I saw a clip of a recent protest rally, where “supposedly,” and I want to emphasize that, a woman involved with Fox News was egging the crowd on. It “seems” that when she realized that someone was filming her actions, she hurriedly ducked out of the picture.
**** I know that “Hitler analogies" get overused, but I’ll dare to be trite. In 1923, Hitler was the leader of a two bit political movement that was little known outside of the German state of Bavaria (southern Germany). His failed attempt to seize the Bavarian state government ended up paying him big benefits. He was put on trial, where his extreme nationalist views were given a public forum, and these views found an audience of anxious Germans, even supposedly with the presiding judge, who gave Hitler a light sentence. The future dictator spent only about a year in prison, and a rather comfy prison at that. So comfy that he actually wrote most of his famous book, “Mein Kampf” while in that prison. He was even allowed to “dictate” (no pun intended!) the book to associates who were permitted into him. Don’t forget, he tried to OVERTHROW the state government, by force!!!
WORD HISTORY:
Thrive-This word came to English from Old Norse (a North Germanic language) "thrifask" during the 13th Century. The Old Norse meaning was "to grasp to oneself;" thus, came the meaning "to prosper." The Norse word seems to have gone back to "thrifa," which meant "to grasp, clutch or seize." Modern North Germanic languages have forms of the word: Swedish has "trivas," and Danish has "trives;" both meaning "to thrive, to flourish." Unfortunately, all sources I checked cannot carry the word back further in history, so where North Germanic got it, is still unknown.
Labels: C-Span, cable television, CNN, English, etymology, extremists, Fox News, newspapers, PBS, television networks
posted by Randy at 2:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home