I must say, I can't remember the last time I watched one of the network news shows. it's about 50/25/25 Fox/CNN/others for me.
News Audiences Increasingly Politicized
- Thread starter BamaNation
- Start date
-
Hi Guest, we are working on updating the site servers and software. We're also 'forcing' everyone to read and agree to our site privacy policy and terms of service. There are no significant changes to either of these but the terms page does clarify a few things that are mostly in the legalese. You can just click the checkbox for both and continue using the site as usual! We'll update you more on the site upgrades VERY soon! THANK YOU AS ALWAYS for supporting the site and being an active participant!
I must say, I can't remember the last time I watched one of the network news shows. it's about 50/25/25 Fox/CNN/others for me.
I'm definitely a news grazer. Don't have the time to waste on every nit and wrinkle of a news program, especially these discussion segments where everyone talks at once and the result is just babble.
Cable is the way to go. Network news long ago ossified into a kind of arthritis of the brain. Their coverage is predictable and the comments of their newscasters amazingly vapid. Example: Peter Jennings covering the Reagan funeral tried to locate Simi Valley geographically for his listeners. "It's near where the Rodney King trial was held."
I've known about decline in youthful newspaper readership for a long time. It's bad in a way because kids need exposure to minimally well constructed sentences. A three-sentence report on TV isn't going to make one well-informed, especially if delivered by an announcer with a shaky acquaintanceship with English.
But newspaper publishers are even more bull headed than TV network producers. Example: the Tuscaloosa News is trying to run a NY Times political format in the Deep South. Lotsa luck.
Cable is the way to go. Network news long ago ossified into a kind of arthritis of the brain. Their coverage is predictable and the comments of their newscasters amazingly vapid. Example: Peter Jennings covering the Reagan funeral tried to locate Simi Valley geographically for his listeners. "It's near where the Rodney King trial was held."
I've known about decline in youthful newspaper readership for a long time. It's bad in a way because kids need exposure to minimally well constructed sentences. A three-sentence report on TV isn't going to make one well-informed, especially if delivered by an announcer with a shaky acquaintanceship with English.
But newspaper publishers are even more bull headed than TV network producers. Example: the Tuscaloosa News is trying to run a NY Times political format in the Deep South. Lotsa luck.
tide69, I agree with you. Fox News is the only news show I watch, and despite what some people say, it is "fair and balanced". They DO give both sides of and issue
((The age gap in newspaper readership continues to widen. Six-in-ten Americans age 65 and older say they read a newspaper on a typical day, compared with just 23% of those under age 30.))
Sorry poll...I don't read newspapers anymore. For one thing, the "news" is old by the time you get it. Sometimes I'll "lurk" around The Washington Times, but that's all.
As for the "trinity", as I call them, I quit watching them after 9/11 when they all decided that they were journalists before they were Americans, and refused to do a simple thing like wear a little flag lapel pin. Ugh...what arrogance and conceit!!!
((The age gap in newspaper readership continues to widen. Six-in-ten Americans age 65 and older say they read a newspaper on a typical day, compared with just 23% of those under age 30.))
Sorry poll...I don't read newspapers anymore. For one thing, the "news" is old by the time you get it. Sometimes I'll "lurk" around The Washington Times, but that's all.
As for the "trinity", as I call them, I quit watching them after 9/11 when they all decided that they were journalists before they were Americans, and refused to do a simple thing like wear a little flag lapel pin. Ugh...what arrogance and conceit!!!
I've always watched Fox News, and I like my local news at 6pm.
Only 23% of those under age 30 read the newspaper? That does surprise me. I read the newspaper every morning ... if nothing else, out of habit.
[This message has been edited by BamaLuver (edited 06-09-2004).]
Only 23% of those under age 30 read the newspaper? That does surprise me. I read the newspaper every morning ... if nothing else, out of habit.
[This message has been edited by BamaLuver (edited 06-09-2004).]
Guilty of being a news grazer here, although, I do enjoy reading a newspaper. Unfortunately, the local paper is a Gannett-owned rag; thus, it has very little local news & not much info either.
The web is my main news source.
The web is my main news source.
When I traveled a lot, I was moderately addicted to USA Today, if for no other reason than it gave me a certain consistency.
These days I read several newpapers online, but I don't subscribe anymore because the B'ham News telemarketers finally pushed me over the edge.
I'm in the process if reading "What Liberal Media?", by Eric Alterman. It does a very good job of tracing the politcal forces driving the media, and how they have evolved in recent years.
I was particularly fascinated by several chapters discussing what he calls the "punditocracy"; basically, the people who determine what issues and stories enter the political discourse.
------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw
These days I read several newpapers online, but I don't subscribe anymore because the B'ham News telemarketers finally pushed me over the edge.
I'm in the process if reading "What Liberal Media?", by Eric Alterman. It does a very good job of tracing the politcal forces driving the media, and how they have evolved in recent years.
I was particularly fascinated by several chapters discussing what he calls the "punditocracy"; basically, the people who determine what issues and stories enter the political discourse.
------------------
"Reading made Don Quixote a gentleman. Believing what he had read made him mad." -- George Bernard Shaw
Changing the subject somewhat from newspapers to TV, I've heard that the "trinity" (Dan, Peter and Tom) are whining, crying and complaining about the media coverage of President Reagan's funeral.
Awwwwwww well ain't that just too bad!
Granted that President Kennedy was assassinated during office, unlike Reagan who died after a long illnes after leaving office, but the coverage went on and on, and I don't recall anyone begrudging him or his family the attention. BTW, funerals are for the living not the dead. It's for people to grieve and to pay homage to the person who has died.
Dan Blabber is griping and saying that we need to get back to the Iraq news. Well....Iraq can take care of itself for a week. It won't hurt them to stay out of the public eye for a few days.
Awwwwwww well ain't that just too bad!
Granted that President Kennedy was assassinated during office, unlike Reagan who died after a long illnes after leaving office, but the coverage went on and on, and I don't recall anyone begrudging him or his family the attention. BTW, funerals are for the living not the dead. It's for people to grieve and to pay homage to the person who has died.
Dan Blabber is griping and saying that we need to get back to the Iraq news. Well....Iraq can take care of itself for a week. It won't hurt them to stay out of the public eye for a few days.
I'm sure the drop off in newspaper readership is related to the internet and the gap is because few older people have computers or know how to use them.
If I got my news from the Houston Chronicle I would think true Americans were communists, we had been soundly defeated by Iraq, and only the poor and uneducated serve in the armed forces. I don't need some ignorant reporter translating (or fabricating) world events for me and giving me his or her opinions.
If I got my news from the Houston Chronicle I would think true Americans were communists, we had been soundly defeated by Iraq, and only the poor and uneducated serve in the armed forces. I don't need some ignorant reporter translating (or fabricating) world events for me and giving me his or her opinions.
Newspapers have slashed their expenses and increased both speed and efficiency with computers, cold type composition, and modern communications equipment. But all this means is that they are delivering the same old pap to readers a little sooner and a lot cheaper.
It's a rare paper that will revamp or even question its content. They might occasionally radically restyle the packaging: different headline typeface, more color photos inside, boxes and dingbats galore. But the written word, story choices, and editorial attitudes remain the same, as in the Houston Chronicle example cited above.
I think Nan cited old news as her reason for skipping newspapers. But TIME magazine has made a fat living for over a half century peddling old news --- some of it two weeks old. Then why are the dailies failing at the same game? TIME's product is superlatively written and edited with background material added that you don't find in your newspaper.
I cannot vouch for its facts, but when one finishes a TIME article he feels he understands the subject thoroughly.
Once upon a TIME, the magazine's writers produced some of the most succulent puns in the English language ("This is the way a Las Vegas showgirl ends, not with a whim but a banker"). To my sorrow they junked puns for punditry.
As for editorial attitudes, they flit between poles like a quick boxer who refuses to be cornered or hit. In the Eisenhower years they were hard rock conservative. In JFK's brief reign, and the rise of hippiedom, TIME changed its skin completely, becoming first limousine liberal then openly Flower Child. Since then they have varied wildly, depending on who rules the White House, and tacking with prevailing public sentiment.
It has made TIME's stockholders a lot of money. The magazine's success is in stark contrast to the plight of TV network news and daily newspapers who refuse to change. And we know what that means.
It's a rare paper that will revamp or even question its content. They might occasionally radically restyle the packaging: different headline typeface, more color photos inside, boxes and dingbats galore. But the written word, story choices, and editorial attitudes remain the same, as in the Houston Chronicle example cited above.
I think Nan cited old news as her reason for skipping newspapers. But TIME magazine has made a fat living for over a half century peddling old news --- some of it two weeks old. Then why are the dailies failing at the same game? TIME's product is superlatively written and edited with background material added that you don't find in your newspaper.
I cannot vouch for its facts, but when one finishes a TIME article he feels he understands the subject thoroughly.
Once upon a TIME, the magazine's writers produced some of the most succulent puns in the English language ("This is the way a Las Vegas showgirl ends, not with a whim but a banker"). To my sorrow they junked puns for punditry.
As for editorial attitudes, they flit between poles like a quick boxer who refuses to be cornered or hit. In the Eisenhower years they were hard rock conservative. In JFK's brief reign, and the rise of hippiedom, TIME changed its skin completely, becoming first limousine liberal then openly Flower Child. Since then they have varied wildly, depending on who rules the White House, and tacking with prevailing public sentiment.
It has made TIME's stockholders a lot of money. The magazine's success is in stark contrast to the plight of TV network news and daily newspapers who refuse to change. And we know what that means.
Latest threads
-
-
-
Alabama Football: Six-Game Player Stock Watch (Buy, Sell, Hold).
- Started by JustNeedMe81
- Replies: 0
-
