7/16 News

[Deuce]

Originally Posted by noxum

Shouldn't a reporting agency be unbiased?

That is a pretty loaded question.... and the answer may not be what you want to hear...

Technically yes the news should be unbiased... but without going into a huge rant...

The "Fairness in Reporting" was removed from FCC Regulations in the 80's when big business news media, such as Rupert Murdochs news empire, lobbied the FCC for and were awarded looser restrictions on the Press.
Those looser restrictions included removing the requirement to allow up to equal time to present an "opposing" viewpoint.

[soap box]
It has resulted in a gradual erosion of the ethics in the media to the point where the news is driven by ratings numbers instead of actual substance.
That is why we get 2-5 minute segments on what Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise wear to dinner, what they had for breakfast and what they named their kids... while we get a 15-30 second spot on the loosening of drilling restrictions in Alaska.
It is why we get 3 years worth of reporting on Monica Lewinski...
Yet, on our President's war record and ties to Oil companies in the Middle East we get all of a total of 1 hour over the course of an 18 month election.

The FOX news and Entertainment Network has had amazing ratings and has effectively lowered the standard in reporting with it's talking heads and pontification... that an actual news agency like CNN has had to ax its field offices and reporters and adopt a standard that would be able to compete with FOX.

The Local television, radio as well as national and local newspapers have all followed suit just to stay in business.
[/soap box]

Believe it or not that is the short answer....
My views are pretty obvious but i am not trying to force my views on you or anyone here... You can decide for yourself...
And if you are truly interested in what happened to the NEWS you may want to check a documentary called Orwell Rolls In His Grave you can get it at the downtown library.

If you don't want to see the changes in the FCC regulations through the filter of the documentary you can read the Regulations at the FCC website for yourself.

[the Bardguy]

Although to be fair, journalism has had a history of bias. Just look at the Pulitzer v. Hearst issues back in the late 1800s and early 1900s where the term "yellow journalism" came from starting with the US involvement in the Spanish American War. Yellow Journalism has undergone several transformations, the most recent of these is "infotainment":

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The gentler pejorative "infotainment" was coined more recently to refer to generally inoffensive news programming that shuns serious issues, but blends "soft" journalism and entertainment rather than emphasizing more important news values. When infotainment involves celebrity sex scandals, dramatic (or dramatized) "true crime" stories and similar trivia, it borders on the tricks of old-fashioned yellow journalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Deuce pretty much hit it spot on.

[dysko]

Originally Posted by Deuce

That is a pretty loaded question.... and the answer may not be what you want to hear...

Technically yes the news should be unbiased... but without going into a huge rant...

FILLLER STUFF

If you don't want to see the changes in the FCC regulations through the filter of the documentary you can read the Regulations at the FCC website for yourself.

Duece this is spot on... having been a member of the media I can vouch for the fact that this the basic truth. Excelent job at boiling it down. 🕺

[Aero]

The "News" isn't about getting information to the people. It is about selling advertising. I find it hilarious to hear news people talking about sweeps when they come around. It always makes me wonder why anyone concerned with simply getting information to the people would worry about sweeps.

[montgjules]

Props to Deuce for bringing up one of my favorite rants.

The media is controlled by those with the money. Although they try to live up to high standards, there is only so much that can be done. Anybody want to take a guess why Americans are so sympathetic toward the Israeli cause?

[fuegote]

I'm sure there's a News/Politics thread most of these posts could go to.

[montgjules]

Could a moderator please move these posts to BigSoccer? Thanks.

:-D

[Aero]

Originally Posted by fuegote

I'm sure there's a News/Politics thread most of these posts could go to.

I thought that this was the news threads. It says so right in the title. 🙂

[fuegote]

lol.. nice.

Allow me to rephrase:

Is there a thread for the discussion of newstations. I thought this was an RSL News thread. :P

[rabble-rabble]

Originally Posted by Aero

The "News" isn't about getting information to the people. It is about selling advertising. I find it hilarious to hear news people talking about sweeps when they come around. It always makes me wonder why anyone concerned with simply getting information to the people would worry about sweeps.

One thing that should be noted is that for most news sources (whether TV, radio, or newspaper) the primary purpose is making $$$$$. Choosing what is more important and how to report it objectively is usually of lesser importance.

I’ve observed what could be termed as downright hostility the way the Tribune has treated RSL since they began play. Some of the highlights (or lowlights) have included:

* Last spring the Tribune blasted RSL for not being family friendly because they had high prices for concessions. (Never seen anything in that paper critical of similar prices at the DC, E Center, and Franklin-Covey and I’m fairly certain the “U” controls those prices (and makes most of the $$$$) anyway.

* Team was blasted by the Tribune on opening day last year when a lot of the walk-up crowd missed much of the first half because the ticket offices couldn’t handle the load. The team had publicly encouraged those without tickets to please arrive early to avoid delays in getting tickets but still there were many people walking to get into the lines for the ticket booths as kick-off approached. While it is true that RSL and the Ute ticket offices underestimated things a bit here, I should note a few years ago my family was given a few ticket vouchers (which needed to be exchanged) to a Utah Starzz playoff game. The DC ticket offices were so overwhelmed that night that we (and 100s of others) missed nearly the entire first half. Didn’t see any mention about the ticket delays in the paper at all the next day.

* In one of their endless staff editorials opposing stadium funding, they referred to the stadium as a “rat hole”. How unprofessional can you get? (This was a STAFF editorial, not a public letter.)

* We continue to see editorial after editorial against the stadium, implying that the $$$$ given to the stadium will never be seen again without any reference at all to the possiblity of potential money that will come back into the county when revenue is generated via taxes on money spent at the stadium, not to mention $$$$ visitors to the state will bring with them coming in for National Team appearances, big-team friendlies such as Real Madrid, and also MLS games.


A bit on the paranoid, but I wonder if someone behind the scenes isn’t jerking the Tribune around. (You know who I mean, some guy that spends huge $$$ on ads for car lots, sports teams, theaters, etc.) Then again, maybe someone high up at the Trib just doesn’t like soccer. The Des News makes about the same ad dollars as the Trib and while being against the stadium, they have not been nearly as vile and nasty as the Trib.

As my earlier long posting today indicated, funding the E Center was opposed by a solid majority of residents, but there wasn’t near the media outcry against it as with the potential RSL stadium. Something really strange (or maybe not so strange) is going on this time.