The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
Cable News Sucks: The plight of journalism in the information age.
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
Yeah, I remember people worried initially, and I was pretty sure that Gibbs just needed to find his legs.
Fencingsax on
0
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
I have maintained that the only reason that cable news still exists in today's age is because of all of the TVs left on at gyms 24/7 so they think that someone is actually watching.
They found a way to make that show even more demagogic? That's amazing. Bravo Fox.
enlightenedbum on
The idea that your vote is a moral statement about you or who you vote for is some backwards ass libertarian nonsense. Your vote is about society. Vote to protect the vulnerable.
I don't really mind if the News doubles as entertainment, because it's pretty much the only thing I watch on TV anyway when I do watch TV. If you wanted to actually get unbiased information wouldn't you get your news from superior online sources anyway?
I don't really mind if the News doubles as entertainment, because it's pretty much the only thing I watch on TV anyway when I do watch TV. If you wanted to actually get unbiased information wouldn't you get your news from superior online sources anyway?
What is entertaining about people shouting meaningless catch phrases at each other. And if I wanted to watch that I'd turn on McLaughlin since at least they do it well.
I don't really mind if the News doubles as entertainment, because it's pretty much the only thing I watch on TV anyway when I do watch TV. If you wanted to actually get unbiased information wouldn't you get your news from superior online sources anyway?
What is entertaining about people shouting meaningless catch phrases at each other. And if I wanted to watch that I'd turn on McLaughlin since at least they do it well.
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
Obs on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
Fox News gets 805,000 viewers nightly (I don't know if this includes TV's that are simply on but muted playing in lunch rooms and gyms across the country) meanwhile MacNeil/Lehrer gets 2.7 million. PBS gets more viewers than O'Rly does easily, and they aren't even the kings of network news. It gets a third of what Nightly does.
I'm not seeing how cable news not even reaching the same league as the low bar of network news broadcasts is acting in their favour here.
Of all the stupid crap media does, the questions quoted in the OP aren't that bad. The first one is sort of silly, but the second two are okay.
Anyway, it turns out people prefer to get news slanted toward their point of view over more unbiased news. Technological penetration in the last 20 or so years has made it possible to market more aggressively to these people. We shouldn't be that surprised to see all news beginning to slant.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
Fox News gets 805,000 viewers nightly (I don't know if this includes TV's that are simply on but muted playing in lunch rooms and gyms across the country) meanwhile MacNeil/Lehrer gets 2.7 million. PBS gets more viewers than O'Rly does easily, and they aren't even the kings of network news. It gets a third of what Nightly does.
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
See, a lot of us actually believe that when it comes to broadcast news, if you're watching the ratings, you're doing it wrong.
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
See, a lot of us actually believe that when it comes to broadcast news, if you're watching the ratings, you're doing it wrong.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
See, a lot of us actually believe that when it comes to broadcast news, if you're watching the ratings, you're doing it wrong.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Making money =! sacrificing quality for a boost in ratings
Plenty of news organizations that are closing their doors or slashing their newsrooms are actually profitable, their margins are just such that people who want to make gobs of money aren't interested in investing in them. You don't have to sell your soul to make a buck, just to make more money than God.
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
See, a lot of us actually believe that when it comes to broadcast news, if you're watching the ratings, you're doing it wrong.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Making money =! sacrificing quality for a boost in ratings
Plenty of news organizations that are closing their doors or slashing their newsrooms are actually profitable, their margins are just such that people who want to make gobs of money aren't interested in investing in them. You don't have to sell your soul to make a buck, just to make more money than God.
I don't think you can really break it down this simply.
Fox News isn't an issue because it's a low quality news program, it's an issue becuase they're biased. If I don't want news with a slight (or not so slight) conservative angle, I don't watch Fox. They are trying to attract a particular audience.
CNBC, as we found out during the Cramer thing, attracts a large number of affluent people despite their overall low ratings. I assume that this is the result of a conscious strategic decision.
Obs already told you, in his way: people like this. Niche marketing works. People apparently don't want a return to the days of the ubiquitous, fatherly news anchor who gave us one version of events to talk about.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Seriously?
no, you're dumb and apparently lack the ability to detect context clues
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Just in case someone tries to be a smart ass and tell me I'm wrong, I'm speaking hyperbolically of course. People would still watch if news went back to how it was in the older days, just probably not as much as before, and the ratings would probably suffer, but not enough to collapse the network. The effect might not even be permanent.
Fox News gets 805,000 viewers nightly (I don't know if this includes TV's that are simply on but muted playing in lunch rooms and gyms across the country) meanwhile MacNeil/Lehrer gets 2.7 million. PBS gets more viewers than O'Rly does easily, and they aren't even the kings of network news. It gets a third of what Nightly does.
I'm not seeing how cable news not even reaching the same league as the low bar of network news broadcasts is acting in their favour here.
Can I get a citation for this please? Not that I don't believe you, but this would make my day.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Seriously?
no, you're dumb and apparently lack the ability to detect context clues
No I halfway thought you were really serious, because this sounds exactly like what some D&Ders would want, or at least not really be opposed to.
Interestingly, it seems Charlie Brooker (of Screenwipe fame and the creator of Dead Set) has decided that the News is infact a load of bollocks at the moment and has decided to do something about it. Newswipe (is on iPlayer or BBC 4 at various times and probably youtube given all of screenwipe is) is a comedy show based around pointed out all the bullshit in stories currently running this week (or at least relatively recently) and taking a bit of time to try to explain what is actually happening. Few other sections in the same vein as Screenwipe that range from explaining how TV news is actually made, to comments by experts and how the News is following/blantently disregarding what they same to outright bizarre stuff like the truly horrifying poetry corner.
Worth checking out how it turns out I think, as Screenwipe was excellent (which is outright miraculous given its pretty much meta-TV in the same vein as I Love the 19XXs or TV's funniest/rudest moments when you get down to it). I'd be curious to see whether or not he brings up the stats that were going around a while back where Daily Show viewers were better informed than those watching the Pundits.
In short, imagine a more sarcastic and bitter version of the Daily Show actually doing news and commenting on the reporting of it, rather than specifically just comedy.
Wasn't there a network that at one point was planning on having the news reported by CGI animals? Basically instead of showing the reporters they would take the sound and impose it on talking animals? Whatever happened to that?
I remember watching this once and it was a Bush Press conference and Bush was portrayed as a fly or some insect.
Apparently I was looking at years old data, FNC gets 1.2 million viewers daily. Still, far worse than any of the the big 3 + PBS. Can't seem to find the ratings for MacNeil/Lehrer at the moment, though. It was somewhere on their site.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Seriously?
no, you're dumb and apparently lack the ability to detect context clues
No I halfway thought you were really serious, because this sounds exactly like what some D&Ders would want, or at least not really be opposed to.
I would very much like a second PBS channel that was basically BBC America...only actually American and not just British imports. Also, non-profit news organizations.
Are there any non-profit foundations dedicated to non-shitty journalism? It'd round out my charitable giving for that sort of thing.
moniker on
0
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Are there any non-profit foundations dedicated to non-shitty journalism? It'd round out my charitable giving for that sort of thing.
Uh... NPR? PBS?
Yeah, those aren't foundations and are the charitable giving that needs to be rounded out. We get multiple PBS's and NPR's around Chicago. And with varying schedules.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Seriously?
no, you're dumb and apparently lack the ability to detect context clues
No I halfway thought you were really serious, because this sounds exactly like what some D&Ders would want, or at least not really be opposed to.
I would very much like a second PBS channel that was basically BBC America...only actually American and not just British imports. Also, non-profit news organizations.
Are there any non-profit foundations dedicated to non-shitty journalism? It'd round out my charitable giving for that sort of thing.
There are a few. ProPublica is a good example. There are a few more local ones around the country; I was reading the recent Nation article on this, and apparently there's a nonprofit twice-weekly newspaper in Minneapolis that's run as a foundation on subscriber donations.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
hold your head high soldier, it ain't over yet
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
That Youtube clip is exactly why I just do not watch TV news at all. I didn't hear a single complete sentence in the first minute. If I'm just going to listen to a bunch of idiots yell at each other I'll at least go to a bar/concert where I can enjoy it.
The best part is how they preface it with "The Greatest Minds" and all that jazz. Also, when is this clip from? The topic makes me say early 2008 but the production values look more like 1994. Looks like a local access channel if it weren't for having famous talking heads.
That Youtube clip is exactly why I just do not watch TV news at all. I didn't hear a single complete sentence in the first minute. If I'm just going to listen to a bunch of idiots yell at each other I'll at least go to a bar/concert where I can enjoy it.
The best part is how they preface it with "The Greatest Minds" and all that jazz. Also, when is this clip from? The topic makes me say early 2008 but the production values look more like 1994. Looks like a local access channel if it weren't for having famous talking heads.
It's the McLaughlin Group, on PBS. I don't know if they've changed the set since 1982, but I don't think so.
I would very much like a second PBS channel that was basically BBC America...only actually American and not just British imports. Also, non-profit news organizations.
I do think the BBC is good for setting a a vague baseline for reporting in the UK, as people will generally check the Beeb as well as their channel fo choice and to great a discrepancy/shittiness will be noted. However this could be a cultural thing as for the UK the BBC has been around longer than television and grown in and around the collective conciousness: its good because its trusted and its trusted because its good. This might be hard position of authority for a de novo construction in America to swing.
Worth checking out how it turns out I think, as Screenwipe was excellent (which is outright miraculous given its pretty much meta-TV in the same vein as I Love the 19XXs or TV's funniest/rudest moments when you get down to it). I'd be curious to see whether or not he brings up the stats that were going around a while back where Daily Show viewers were better informed than those watching the Pundits.
In short, imagine a more sarcastic and bitter version of the Daily Show actually doing news and commenting on the reporting of it, rather than specifically just comedy.
I thought it was a pretty interesting (and depressingly funny) take on things, especially this bit on the German school shootings (the rest can also be found on youtube):
You know, we could do a youtube channel where we reiterate any given news segment on any given network and MST3K style just point out the talking points and evident bias. I don't think it should be humorous, though.
Delzhand on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited March 2009
What seems to be happening is that news that used to be highly centralized is now becoming highly decentralized. There's a much, much lower barrier to entry; however, everyone is beating each other into so much of a pulp to get out in front that nobody really does.
Meanwhile, the amount of floor space in a press conference isn't changing. More and more often, the people INSIDE the press corps get scooped by the people OUTSIDE the press corps. And the guys inside were never equipped for that. Their business model depends on THEM being the ones to score the headline; the outside's business model depends on ANYONE getting the headline; they don't really care who and if it just so happens to be them, all the better.
Result: the guys on the inside collapse into a black hole of desperation. They simply will get replaced by someone else. Very few journalists get remembered past their own era.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
I don't really mind if the News doubles as entertainment, because it's pretty much the only thing I watch on TV anyway when I do watch TV. If you wanted to actually get unbiased information wouldn't you get your news from superior online sources anyway?
What is entertaining about people shouting meaningless catch phrases at each other. And if I wanted to watch that I'd turn on McLaughlin since at least they do it well.
Cable news is objectively awful. Complete and total shit populated by crop of blathering simpletons who just screech their opinion at the camera. The only thing that could redeem it would be a cleansing fire that consumes all political commentary and entertainment-bent programs.
When a comedian has to do the hard-hitting journalism because NO ONE ELSE WILL, you know things are not right.
The problem is people expect entertainment when that isn't the goddamn function of the news. News as a business just seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Instead of actual important shit you get drowned in a sea of mostly irrelevant-but-somewhat-interesting crap. The news isn't supposed to put on a funny hat and dance for you. Sometimes the important shit in life is going to be dry, and yet people expect otherwise all the damn time.
News was boring, but given the option between boring and news as entertainment, people watched the entertainment version instead. Really, all TDS does is take the FOX model of make the news entertaining and push it to it's logical conclusion: make an entertainment show that contains a bit of news.
The biases aren't the core issue, they'll be around no matter who does the news in any method. The issue is that people want to be amused and interested, and you only get that by informing the public that coming up is a story on how your baby stroller could be killing your child RIGHT NOW.
Posts
Maybe I'm just biased, but I fucking hate broadcast news that isn't NPR. I can't stand watching the news on TV.
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
It's not getting any better, folks.
All of them.
You mess with the dolphin, you get the nose.
Fair and balanced, you say?
I don't really mind if the News doubles as entertainment, because it's pretty much the only thing I watch on TV anyway when I do watch TV. If you wanted to actually get unbiased information wouldn't you get your news from superior online sources anyway?
What is entertaining about people shouting meaningless catch phrases at each other. And if I wanted to watch that I'd turn on McLaughlin since at least they do it well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSqsBfBCW7k
Uh those guys are awful, very grating.
Regardless, news is entertaining because of it's sensationalism. I eat that shit up. You just have to get into it, but always maintain a little wry grin on the side.
And there's no going back really. What would happen if they went back to the ol' "blah blah *information* good night"? No one would watch, ratings would tank, network shuts the fuck down forever.
Oh heaven save us from such tragedy.
Fox News gets 805,000 viewers nightly (I don't know if this includes TV's that are simply on but muted playing in lunch rooms and gyms across the country) meanwhile MacNeil/Lehrer gets 2.7 million. PBS gets more viewers than O'Rly does easily, and they aren't even the kings of network news. It gets a third of what Nightly does.
I'm not seeing how cable news not even reaching the same league as the low bar of network news broadcasts is acting in their favour here.
Anyway, it turns out people prefer to get news slanted toward their point of view over more unbiased news. Technological penetration in the last 20 or so years has made it possible to market more aggressively to these people. We shouldn't be that surprised to see all news beginning to slant.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Oh wow. That's great.
I really had no idea.
This explains so much.
See, a lot of us actually believe that when it comes to broadcast news, if you're watching the ratings, you're doing it wrong.
Which is a fantastic view to hold, I guess? Unfortunately we've yet to nationalize our entire news apparatus, so various news entities will continue to want to make money.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Making money =! sacrificing quality for a boost in ratings
Plenty of news organizations that are closing their doors or slashing their newsrooms are actually profitable, their margins are just such that people who want to make gobs of money aren't interested in investing in them. You don't have to sell your soul to make a buck, just to make more money than God.
I don't think you can really break it down this simply.
Fox News isn't an issue because it's a low quality news program, it's an issue becuase they're biased. If I don't want news with a slight (or not so slight) conservative angle, I don't watch Fox. They are trying to attract a particular audience.
CNBC, as we found out during the Cramer thing, attracts a large number of affluent people despite their overall low ratings. I assume that this is the result of a conscious strategic decision.
Obs already told you, in his way: people like this. Niche marketing works. People apparently don't want a return to the days of the ubiquitous, fatherly news anchor who gave us one version of events to talk about.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Are you insane? Nationalizing all the news networks?
Seriously?
no, you're dumb and apparently lack the ability to detect context clues
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Can I get a citation for this please? Not that I don't believe you, but this would make my day.
LoL: failboattootoot
No I halfway thought you were really serious, because this sounds exactly like what some D&Ders would want, or at least not really be opposed to.
Interestingly, it seems Charlie Brooker (of Screenwipe fame and the creator of Dead Set) has decided that the News is infact a load of bollocks at the moment and has decided to do something about it. Newswipe (is on iPlayer or BBC 4 at various times and probably youtube given all of screenwipe is) is a comedy show based around pointed out all the bullshit in stories currently running this week (or at least relatively recently) and taking a bit of time to try to explain what is actually happening. Few other sections in the same vein as Screenwipe that range from explaining how TV news is actually made, to comments by experts and how the News is following/blantently disregarding what they same to outright bizarre stuff like the truly horrifying poetry corner.
Worth checking out how it turns out I think, as Screenwipe was excellent (which is outright miraculous given its pretty much meta-TV in the same vein as I Love the 19XXs or TV's funniest/rudest moments when you get down to it). I'd be curious to see whether or not he brings up the stats that were going around a while back where Daily Show viewers were better informed than those watching the Pundits.
In short, imagine a more sarcastic and bitter version of the Daily Show actually doing news and commenting on the reporting of it, rather than specifically just comedy.
I remember watching this once and it was a Bush Press conference and Bush was portrayed as a fly or some insect.
I would very much like a second PBS channel that was basically BBC America...only actually American and not just British imports. Also, non-profit news organizations.
Are there any non-profit foundations dedicated to non-shitty journalism? It'd round out my charitable giving for that sort of thing.
Uh... NPR? PBS?
Yeah, those aren't foundations and are the charitable giving that needs to be rounded out. We get multiple PBS's and NPR's around Chicago. And with varying schedules.
There are a few. ProPublica is a good example. There are a few more local ones around the country; I was reading the recent Nation article on this, and apparently there's a nonprofit twice-weekly newspaper in Minneapolis that's run as a foundation on subscriber donations.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
The best part is how they preface it with "The Greatest Minds" and all that jazz. Also, when is this clip from? The topic makes me say early 2008 but the production values look more like 1994. Looks like a local access channel if it weren't for having famous talking heads.
It's the McLaughlin Group, on PBS. I don't know if they've changed the set since 1982, but I don't think so.
I do think the BBC is good for setting a a vague baseline for reporting in the UK, as people will generally check the Beeb as well as their channel fo choice and to great a discrepancy/shittiness will be noted. However this could be a cultural thing as for the UK the BBC has been around longer than television and grown in and around the collective conciousness: its good because its trusted and its trusted because its good. This might be hard position of authority for a de novo construction in America to swing.
I thought it was a pretty interesting (and depressingly funny) take on things, especially this bit on the German school shootings (the rest can also be found on youtube):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rMYyegT5Y
Meanwhile, the amount of floor space in a press conference isn't changing. More and more often, the people INSIDE the press corps get scooped by the people OUTSIDE the press corps. And the guys inside were never equipped for that. Their business model depends on THEM being the ones to score the headline; the outside's business model depends on ANYONE getting the headline; they don't really care who and if it just so happens to be them, all the better.
Result: the guys on the inside collapse into a black hole of desperation. They simply will get replaced by someone else. Very few journalists get remembered past their own era.
After watching that, I need to see something similar, but far funnier.
Ah, good stuff.
Cable news is objectively awful. Complete and total shit populated by crop of blathering simpletons who just screech their opinion at the camera. The only thing that could redeem it would be a cleansing fire that consumes all political commentary and entertainment-bent programs.
When a comedian has to do the hard-hitting journalism because NO ONE ELSE WILL, you know things are not right.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
The biases aren't the core issue, they'll be around no matter who does the news in any method. The issue is that people want to be amused and interested, and you only get that by informing the public that coming up is a story on how your baby stroller could be killing your child RIGHT NOW.
That's some incredibly petty shit, right up there with "Is Barak a natural born american?"