When did it cease to be news?

[Steve Petrone]

The first news anchor I remember was Walter Concrite. He was someone that was listened to. Respected.
Fast forward to today and almost everyday there is an issue and all the parrots say the same thing. Gravitas. Who used that word? Suddenly one day EVERY newscast used that word to refer to a person "in the news" (I can't remember who sparked the use of that word). I looked it up. It was the choice of Dick Cheney for VP by Bush. I wonder how many newspeople even knew the word and it's meaning or had ever heard the word before that day. Yet, every news cast used that word.
"credibly accused" was another one.
Who sends out the WORD of the day? I can only wonder.
Today, there is no balance. Just an agenda.
So when did we lose the evening news? I honestly can't remember when that occurred.

 

[JKalchik]

Steve, one of the key differences is that for OTA television, the FCC required news broadcasts, and IIRC, both local and national. If you have to pay for reception (cable,) those FCC requirements no long apply. The cable channels, in their quest for ratings and viewers, don't have to simply report the news, it becomes entertainment.

And yes, I do miss Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley and their contemporaries. Never thought I would at the time. Cronkite's coverage of the Apollo missions was unmatched.

 

[Lynn Dollar]

Very complex subject that can be summed up in two words ......... cable and internet.

But really, was it a good thing when back in the day, we only had three sources for national news ? That could make for a cozy relationship.

On the other hand, I don't think libel laws even exist anymore ? Do they ? That's what kept publishers honest , back in the day.

It seems everything on the internet is exempt from libel laws and FCC regulation. And internet publishers don't have any assets to protect, anyway.

It leaves us consumers of news in the position of having to be very discerning and critical of everything we read and hear.

 

[LMichaels]

It's too bad we can't simply just get "news" any more. Everything now is twisted to fit the ideology of the person(s) spewing it

 

[Brad Baker]

Back in the day, network news shows were produced at a loss and were funded by the entertainment divisions. Not anymore. Now, the twenty-four hour "news" shows have to stir-and-repeat the few hours of actual news to fill the rest of the day. Unless a show is publicly funded, there is a need to get views to sell the advertising and bring in revenue. One way is to produce stories with flashy sensationalism, controversy, and that produce outrage in the viewer. They yield the most viewers. Most news shows seem to have some bias that places them on one side or the other of the political spectrum.

Here are some links that rate news and opinion media by bias (hoping this doesn't violate Terms of Service).

Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart

Allsides Media Bias Ratings

 

[Timothy F. Lewis]

There is an episode of “Raising Hope”, where the Cloris Leachman character addresses this very point. Comedic genius! The reflection of comedy and real life at clever juxtaposition.
I’m staying away from the rest of the save to say that Walter Cronkite (and his generation of news reporters) REPORTED the news not offered shock and awe news casting so prevalent today.
Have a peaceful, honorable, compassionate day.

 

[Kevin L (NKY)]

News fo from local to national are just over paid taking heads. To spread there company bosses agendas.

 

[MikeS in Alaska]

Who, what, when, where, why - and how.

Spare me how you feel about it. Like Sergeant Friday sez, "Just the facts, Ma'am." (he never actually said that)

 

[Hawk Redhawk]

Very complex subject that can be summed up in two words ......... cable and internet.

But really, was it a good thing when back in the day, we only had three sources for national news ? That could make for a cozy relationship.

On the other hand, I don't think libel laws even exist anymore ? Do they ? That's what kept publishers honest , back in the day.

It seems everything on the internet is exempt from libel laws and FCC regulation. And internet publishers don't have any assets to protect, anyway.

It leaves us consumers of news in the position of having to be very discerning and critical of everything we read and hear.

Actually, Libel laws still do exist. However, when they can be applied is the issue.

Right now, if a broadcast company, OTA or Cable makes a false allegation about someone, they can be sued for libel.

What's changed is this; back in the 90's when social media was in its infancy, a law was passed that gave the social media companies immunity from what people posted on their platforms. Because at the time, it would have been almost impossible to monitor and fact check all content, social media companies would have been dead in the water because of lawsuits. So at the present time Facebook, Twitter, etc. cannot be held civilly nor criminally responsible for false information and defamation that is posted on their sites.

Today, we have a whole different ball game. These companies are rich and powerful and whatever your politics are, you should be in favor of making them responsible for whatever is posted on their platforms. They have the ability through technology and the finances to afford checking all posts on their platforms.