Chilly Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 What do you think would have happened had the media got all up in arms about all the attached pork in the Iraqi war funding bill? Would anyone really have paid a lot of attention to it though? The NY Times had a large story on John Murtha last year and all the pork he puts into everything. Not only does he look like a pig, he has the biggest pork distribution in the US. It didn't matter one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Would anyone really have paid a lot of attention to it though? The NY Times had a large story on John Murtha last year and all the pork he puts into everything. Not only does he look like a pig, he has the biggest pork distribution in the US. It didn't matter one bit. It is a symbiotic relationship. The press runs a story and sees if it gets legs. Politicians will pick up on the story, if they see an advantage to having it run, and a cycle develops. The attorney story first hit in Dec, yet it took until March to get mainstream attention. If you're sourcing the Frontline piece crediting 60 Minutes with beginning the death of traditional news, they were wrong. 60 Minutes was on the air for a long time and traditional news still fared strong. The rise of cable in the '80s killed broadcast news, specifically CNN, along with popularity of entertainment driven news programs like Current Affair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 If you're sourcing the Frontline piece crediting 60 Minutes with beginning the death of traditional news, they were wrong. 60 Minutes was on the air for a long time and traditional news still fared strong. The rise of cable in the '80s killed broadcast news, specifically CNN, along with popularity of entertainment driven news programs like Current Affair. I'm not. Was sourcing a couple different pieces I read last semester in a reading packet we had. I didn't bother to talk about the CNN effect as it wasn't central to my discussion last time. It was largely 60 Minutes and USA Today which pushed traditional news sources (television, newspaper, etc) toward the realization that news as entertainment was viable and successful. The CNN effect has more to do with real time media as an agent which influences the speed of decisions and the decisions themselves. The increased influence is due to not only the speed of these media institutions but also due to the 24/7 basis on which they operate. IIRC, it was Livingston who coined the term. His piece was pretty interesting, examining the effect that "instantaneous" media had on military decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Some news outlets are better than others and do serve a very important public good. You have to take the good with the bad. The news media is an extremely important part of our society. OMG! After saying that the ENTIRE media is subject to profit motive, and that is the main reason for bias, now you are saying that some are better than others? Does that mean that some are less subject to profit motives than others? Which one is it? Or is it that some newspapers are agenda-driven and others aren't? Next you be telling us: "All animals are equal. But, some animals are more equal than others!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 OMG! After saying that the ENTIRE media is subject to profit motive, and that is the main reason for bias, now you are saying that some are better than others? Does that mean that some are less subject to profit motives than others? Which one is it? Or is it that some newspapers are agenda-driven and others aren't? Next you be telling us: "All animals are equal. But, some animals are more equal than others!" Ugh you are stupid! Maybe different media outlets appeal to different customers? The New York Times will try and attract the more educated in the population while Fox news will go for the semi-literate and moronic elements like you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Let me explain a bit more what I was talking about. It used to be considered that the best way to make money in the industry was to provide the best news service. There were many media companies all competing to have the best reporting, fact checking, and news selection. Institutions and ethical codes were built to make sure that the news had a substantive quality. Stories were fact checked, corroborated over and over, and the slogan of "All the news thats fit to print" was true. When 60 minutes came along, the news magazine format represented a more entertainment-oriented view that most news companies thought would fail. It had more sensationalized news stories than what was around at the time. For the newspaper industry, it was USA Today who really represented this viewpoint. The success of the more sensationalized, colorful, divided newspaper showed that it wasn't necessarily substance that sold news. Thus, the news media began to change, and consolidation sped this process way up. The media conglomerates ignored the walls between the accountants and editors. They looked at the success of 60 minutes, the USA Today, and other similar outlets and realized that the best way to make profit is not to spend a bunch of money having the most substantive news, but to spend less money and have more entertaining news. The news media has evolved to be focused on soft news with little corroboration. The least expensive way to report the news (less facts, more sensationalism and entertainment) also proved to provide the biggest audience. As large conglomerates bought other outlets, they were transformed into these types of news outlets to keep the shareholders and owners happy. This has influenced every corner of the media world. Some outlets have done a better job at not being as blatant about it, and tend to have higher quality products (The NYT, WSJ, etc). However, the quality of the Times is nowhere near what it used to be. I think its also interesting to note that I do not believe there is anyway Watergate would happen in today's media. I'm not buying the gist of your argument. In fact I think it has very little basis in fact. Have you ever done research using old newspapers? I can tell you there was a great amount of fluff in the past as there is today. Can you tell me the basis of your conclusion that newsstories are not as well fact checked now as in the past? Have you ever heard the term "Yellow Journalism?" That is an old term, not a new one. Let me throw one example at you. McCarthyism thrived because "Tailgunner" Joe claims of 205 commies in the State Department went unchecked and unchallanged. In fact, McCarthyism was a massive media failure. Also, the centralization of media organizations doesn't necessarilly lead to more sensationalism. Competition beteween smaller news organizations can alos lead to the reporting of rumors, half truths and opinions that act as news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I'm not. Was sourcing a couple different pieces I read last semester in a reading packet we had. I didn't bother to talk about the CNN effect as it wasn't central to my discussion last time. It was largely 60 Minutes and USA Today which pushed traditional news sources (television, newspaper, etc) toward the realization that news as entertainment was viable and successful. The CNN effect has more to do with real time media as an agent which influences the speed of decisions and the decisions themselves. The increased influence is due to not only the speed of these media institutions but also due to the 24/7 basis on which they operate. IIRC, it was Livingston who coined the term. His piece was pretty interesting, examining the effect that "instantaneous" media had on military decisions. Your sources are wrong in their conclusions. 60 Minutes was on the air for about 20 years before CBS News operations started feeling the competitive pain. Logic would reason that if 60 Minutes was turning a healthy profit, the overall news operation would benefit from the extra revenue sources. The trouble for news started surfacing when people stopped watching the nightly news, not from budget cutbacks. There is a closer parallel to news divisions becoming more sensationalistic to maintain ratings than to lowering their standards because of staff cuts. It was a personality driven business, and Dan Rathers of the world hated to have become marginalized in the new media world. Media analysts rarely understand the business side, as that's where I'm guessing your reading packet came from. Follow the money, and you will be closer to the truth. In an ad driven business, John Stewart became a lot more relevant than Dan Rather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Your sources are wrong in their conclusions. 60 Minutes was on the air for about 20 years before CBS News operations started feeling the competitive pain. Logic would reason that if 60 Minutes was turning a healthy profit, the overall news operation would benefit from the extra revenue sources. The trouble for news started surfacing when people stopped watching the nightly news, not from budget cutbacks. There is a closer parallel to news divisions becoming more sensationalistic to maintain ratings than to lowering their standards because of staff cuts. It was a personality driven business, and Dan Rathers of the world hated to have become marginalized in the new media world. The argument that I am putting forth is not dependent on whether or not CBS News operations were feeling competitive pain. Rather, it is dependent on media companies recognizing that a different type of media, news as entertainment, could provide more profits than simply news as a service could. 60 Minutes was one of the very first[ organizations to show this. It then took years for the industry to recognize this and change from the time 60 Minutes started. I do not agree with your interpretation of 60 Minutes existing for 20 years as evidence that this change did not take place. The competitive nature was only part of the overall change, one that facilitated the speed of the change itself. The change would have happened anyway due to the higher profit margins which were produced by news as entertainment over news as a service. Media analysts rarely understand the business side, as that's where I'm guessing your reading packet came from. Follow the money, and you will be closer to the truth. In an ad driven business, John Stewart became a lot more relevant than Dan Rather. The business side is what they are arguing as the reason for the change (aka higher profits). The other stuff that I mentioned helped to facilitate the change of the industry as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 I'm not buying the gist of your argument. In fact I think it has very little basis in fact. Have you ever done research using old newspapers? I can tell you there was a great amount of fluff in the past as there is today. Yeah, I have, and youa re right, there always was fluff. However, its the amount of fluff that matters (they have to fill out a whole newspaper somehow, don't they?). Compare the content of investigative reporting 40 years ago to the investigative reporting of today and you will see a huge difference. Can you tell me the basis of your conclusion that newsstories are not as well fact checked now as in the past? Because the media companies themselves spend much less time and money cross-referencing stories. It costs them too much with little benefit in a news as entertainment environment. Have you ever heard the term "Yellow Journalism?" That is an old term, not a new one. My argument is not that the media is perfect, but rather that it has changed to be less-perfect than it once was. Also, the centralization of media organizations doesn't necessarilly lead to more sensationalism. Competition beteween smaller news organizations can alos lead to the reporting of rumors, half truths and opinions that act as news. What you are arguing is that A does not 100% of the time lead to B in this situation. That I agree with, but the general overall trends are what I stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 The argument that I am putting forth is not dependent on whether or not CBS News operations were feeling competitive pain. Rather, it is dependent on media companies recognizing that a different type of media, news as entertainment, could provide more profits than simply news as a service could. 60 Minutes was one of the very first[ organizations to show this. It then took years for the industry to recognize this and change from the time 60 Minutes started. I do not agree with your interpretation of 60 Minutes existing for 20 years as evidence that this change did not take place. The competitive nature was only part of the overall change, one that facilitated the speed of the change itself. The change would have happened anyway due to the higher profit margins which were produced by news as entertainment over news as a service. You can't just say that "It then took years for the industry to recognize this and change from the time 60 Minutes started." TWENTY years is a long time. During that 20 years, the other networks launched their own versions of 60 Minutes, but all was cozy when the only televised news was provided by the Big 3 networks. There was no impetus for change, until Ted Turner & Rupert Murdoch disrupted the party. Once the audiences started leaving, that's when the change began. The business side is what they are arguing as the reason for the change (aka higher profits). The other stuff that I mentioned helped to facilitate the change of the industry as a whole. You're still wrong. The industry was always about profits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 My argument is not that the media is perfect, but rather that it has changed to be less-perfect than it once was. And the basis for this conclusion, is..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 During that 20 years, the other networks launched their own versions of 60 Minutes, but all was cozy when the only televised news was provided by the Big 3 networks. There was no impetus for change, until Ted Turner & Rupert Murdoch disrupted the party. Once the audiences started leaving, that's when the change began. No, it was happening while the audiences were still there, when 60 Minutes, the USA Today, and the other more entertainment-based news sources proved to be profitable and cost less to the companies. It was all about maximizing profits. You're still wrong. The industry was always about profits.My argument is not that the industry was never about profits. My argument is that what was considered the most profitable way to do business changed and the media as a result changed. You keep trying to insinuate that I'm ignoring the business aspect of things when my argument is based on the maximizing of industry profits and the evolution of what was considered the most profitable business model. When I said it was now a "focus on profits", I was talking in today's terms of what is considered profitable (aka less actual news service, more entertainment service). And the basis for this conclusion, is..... Uh, everything I've been talking about has been about that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 No, it was happening while the audiences were still there, when 60 Minutes, the USA Today, and the other more entertainment-based news sources proved to be profitable and cost less to the companies. It was all about maximizing profits. Follow the timeline, and you may get the right answer, eventually. 60 Minutes launched 1968 20/20 launched 1978 CNN Launched 1980 Walter Cronkite leaves CBS News 1981 USA Today launched 1982 William Paley sells CBS to Tisch 1986, etc My argument is not that the industry was never about profits. My argument is that what was considered the most profitable way to do business changed and the media as a result changed. You keep trying to insinuate that I'm ignoring the business aspect of things when my argument is based on the maximizing of industry profits and the evolution of what was considered the most profitable business model. When I said it was now a "focus on profits", I was talking in today's terms of what is considered profitable (aka less actual news service, more entertainment service). And your understanding of how the industry derives its profits and its impact on news operations of the major networks over the past 30 years is based on a reading packet you got in college.... Uh, everything I've been talking about has been about that conclusion. No, you said that news was better before than it is now. How? By what standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Follow the timeline, and you may get the right answer, eventually. Of course, one of the central issues as to why we disagree is because we interpret the events that happened (including the timeline) differently. And your understanding of how the industry derives its profits and its impact on news operations of the major networks over the past 30 years is based on a reading packet you got in college....Multiple books/reading packets, 2 professors who used to work in the industry, and discussions with a friend who works for an Austin news program is how I formed the opinion that I have. No, you said that news was better before than it is now. How? By what standards? I've already laid that out above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Of course, one of the central issues as to why we disagree is because we interpret the events that happened (including the timeline) differently. Ok, so now that the timeline doesn't support the farce that 60 Minutes was the cause of the downfall of news we have a disagreement? Why is it so hard to see that the much ballyhooed crisis surrounding news organizations and newsgathering didn't manifest until the mid to late 1980's, a good 20 years after 60 Minutes went on the air? Multiple books/reading packets, 2 professors who used to work in the industry, and discussions with a friend who works for an Austin news program is how I formed the opinion that I have.I've already laid that out above. Which doesn't eliminate news rooms' biases against the business side of the operations. Profit is always derided on the church side of news organizations, and it's more often that people on the church side don't understand how their businesses are run. News organizations, in the aggregate, are not less correct than they once were. The major difference is that you lost the paternalistic newsreader that was Uncle Walter. Your example of Watergate is a red herring, because 'gates are happening much more frequently now, as news is a lot more effective in opening things up. If you read your history, you'll find governmental offenses that were far worse than Watergate, that remained silent and things that were simply manufactured by the old press barons. So, again, what's the standard that you use to proclaim that news of old is better than news of today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Multiple books/reading packets, 2 professors who used to work in the industry, and discussions with a friend who works for an Austin news program is how I formed the opinion that I have. Get back to us when you've discussed it with the waiter of somebody who's the uncle of someone who took a journalism class at Ole Miss...then maybe we'll listen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 This thread is starting to get that good old "3.5" feeling about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 This thread is starting to get that good old "3.5" feeling about it. Tis why I didn't reply, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Everybody has probably seen this before, but it does sum up this thread perfectly... Why Faux Spews Sux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts