18-08-2005 07:46									#1
	Media Trends - Those Who Pull the Strings Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I've noticed a trend with a shift from political shows to quasi-legal shows where Republicans chase down the latest crime (no, not in the White House). First Aruba and now some really drunk guy went overboard a cruise ship near Turkey. Are the ratings for this crap even better than the ratings for the political crap I like? I know this was a Republican-led distraction from our own government to little Aruba, but is this the wave we're riding where politicians try to control the media by coercing the corporate owners to behave? Oops, that was how the Dems controlled the media before the Repubs...

	18-08-2005 09:01									#2
	Tired of ads?

The problem is not with media, media owners, or even politicians. The problem is with, yes, capitalism.

Pull up a chair, and Uncle Rufus will tell you a story...

Once upon a time, 30-40 years ago, the national tv news was much, much better than it is to day -- more sober, more responsible, more substanative. Why? Because it was insulated from the bottom line. Every network actually lost money on their news operations; they covered the losses with the profits they were making from the ad revenue on Mannix and The Brady Bunch. Given that news was a money-loser, you'd think the networks would have stinted on it; but instead, precisely because it wasn't expected to make money, they treated it as a prestige product, and giants like Walter Cronkite bestrode the earth.

Flash forward to the 80's. Corporate takeover/merger mania hits the media, as non-media companies take over the networks and tell them that the news has to be like any other corporate division: it has to pay for itself. At the same time, this upstart cable network called CNN begins trying to figure out how to sell 24 hours of national news ad time in a country that was used to a mere half an hour a day of national news.

And so began a long, slow race to the bottom. Of course it needn't have been a race to the bottom, and wasn't, initially. But by the early 90s, as desparate news producers who had never had to make money before were casting about for ways to do so, they noticed two things: first, that 3 new networks had emerged -- Fox, WB, UPN -- all of which seemed to be surviving by catering to the lowest common denominator; and second, that for the first time in TV history network daytime fare -- that is, soap operas -- were losing ground to a scary new bit of programming, the daytime talk show. The path to profitability seemed clear, and Christina Applegate and Jerry Springer were lighting the way.

Of course, as if that weren't enough, one of those bottom-feeding networks started its own 24-hour newschannel, and the race to the bottom became the Indy 500.

But in the end, the culprit was capitalism, and the placing of profits above public service. The only good news program in America (The NewsHour on PBS) and the best news outfit in the world (the BBC) are both at least partly insulated from the market, and it shows.

	18-08-2005 10:27									#3
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I'm biased in favor of newspapers. Don't know why ... just am.

Gatekeeper

	18-08-2005 10:36									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly and giants like Walter Cronkite bestrode the earth.

Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it.

Yes, you need more of those giants...

	18-08-2005 10:39									#5
	Tired of ads?

Everyone is far better off knowing that the heads on the tube really are idiots for the most part, rather than putting them up on some pedastel that they long ago swept national leaders off of.

	18-08-2005 10:45									#6
	Tired of ads?

I spend more time on the internet getting my news, don't watch the boob tube all that much anymore. My computer is my boob tube now.

	18-08-2005 11:00									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it. Yes, you need more of those giants...

That's why I get my news from Poly: 1,000 people and 65,000 DLs can't all be wrong.

	18-08-2005 11:06									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Giants who didn't know what they were talking about who pronounced defeat for your nation while your armed forces had just routed the enemy in the field. Giants who, because they said it, many others accepted it. Yes, you need more of those giants...

Right. Walter Cronkite lost the eminently winnable Vietnam War.

	18-08-2005 11:14									#9
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

	18-08-2005 11:19									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

Hmm, is it coincidence then that the rise of 100s of specialized cable channels and the Internet has paralleled an increase in wars involving the USA, now that fewer people watch network news?

	18-08-2005 11:23									#11
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

The war was lost in our living rooms, to some extent. But it wasn't because of what anchors were saying; it was because the networks actually showed the war -- lots of it, in footage that wasn't pre-approved by the Pentagon. One can only imagine what Bush's approval rating would be like right now if news outlets were still that brave.

In fact, one of the hallmarks of the old news is just how much time they spent showing news. Elections are another good example. During the 1968 election, the average clip of a candidate speaking was over a minute long -- long enough for viewers to hear something of substance being said. By the 2000 election, the average clip of a candidate was 8-9 seconds.

The old news was news. The new news is infotainment. The elevation of profit above public service is to blame.

	18-08-2005 11:32									#12
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

One wonders if the US would have made it to Normandy without suing for peace with Germany, had the networks actually showed the war. I'm sure not even FDR would have worn that well, forget about Bush.

The old news had merit, I agree. The old news stopped being news sometime around the time Cronkite got up, took off his glasses, and told Americans that Tet was a disaster... when in fact the VC had been soundly trounced.

Cronkite was the beginning of what you despise. The personality became larger than the news. The elevation of personality is what is actually to blame.

	18-08-2005 11:33									#13
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Hmm, is it coincidence then that the rise of 100s of specialized cable channels and the Internet has paralleled an increase in wars involving the USA, now that fewer people watch network news?

Your're funny. Hehe.

	18-08-2005 11:44									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Excellent analysis Rufus.

Nothing more to add really.

Catering to the lowest common denominator pretty much sums it up.

We could go on about the cultural repurcussions which I believe are taking the country to a dangerous place, to a place similar to when the Western Roman Empire population became excessivley hedonistic.

	18-08-2005 11:49									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Cronkite was the beginning of what you despise. The personality became larger than the news. The elevation of personality is what is actually to blame.

Personality isn't the issue (and Cronkite wasn't the start of that anyway; it was already a firm feature of broadcast news when Edward R. Murrow was reporting from WWII London). The issue is taking news reporting itself seriously. Murrow did; Huntly and Brinkley did; Cronkite did. And they did, or they were allowed to, because the people who put them on the air did. Now, however, it's become impossible to believe that news outlets take news reporting seriously -- garnering ratings, yes; selling ad time, yes; but not news reporting.

Cronkite was seriously wrong about Tet. But at least he was serious; he, and the networks, never led the news with three straight days of "runaway bride" stories when American soldiers were fighting and dying.

	18-08-2005 11:58									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Word up and the weekly, "Eating vegetable A helps prevent cancer," or the following week, "Eating [junk food B] raises the risk of cancer," stories get REALLY old quick.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/1...reut/index.html

	18-08-2005 12:11									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

RTF: I don't mean to assist in moving this thread sideways; the state of news reporting in the US and other countries is an important issue. But on the Cronkite/Tet thing: What he pointed out was that the generals and the politicians had led him, and the American people to believe that the war was being won. They did not admit that the NLF was capable of such an offensive. The fact that this offensive was defeated and the NLF's offensive military capacity was largely destroyed as a result is irrelevant to the point. (Quickly replaced by NVA military capacity, BTW) The result was the military and political leadership of the US lost significant crediblity, which it never recovered.

	18-08-2005 12:14									#18
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by techumseh RTF: I don't mean to assist in moving this thread sideways; the state of news reporting in the US and other countries is an important issue. But on the Cronkite/Tet thing: What he pointed out was that the generals and the politicians had led him, and the American people to believe that the war was being won. They did not admit that the NLF was capable of such an offensive. The fact that this offensive was defeated and the NLF's offensive military capacity was largely destroyed as a result is irrelevant to the point. (Quickly replaced by NVA military capacity, BTW) The result was the military and political leadership of the US lost significant crediblity, which it never recovered.

Well said. I didn't want to threadjack a thread whose main point I feel strongly about...but I've said my piece.

	18-08-2005 12:21									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

There is a popular theory floating around Vietnam that Nixon intentionally pulled out of Vietnam to bankrupt the Soviets. This is the first time I have ever heard this theory but it is a very popular one there.

Maybe there is some validity to it, on the other hand, maybe it is their way of justifying the Americans abandoning the place. Many of them have the feeling that nobody can beat America.

I was very suprised to hear this and how common the theory is believed in.

	18-08-2005 12:23									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Back to the media, even the 30 minute Entertainment Tonight clones have gotten worse, it's all about celebrity gossip now. At least before they were more about actual movies and tv shows, now it's all gossip.

What a black hole.

	18-08-2005 12:23									#21
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Ted Striker Word up and the weekly, "Eating vegetable A helps prevent cancer," or the following week, "Eating [junk food B] raises the risk of cancer," stories get REALLY old quick. http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/08/1...reut/index.html

Obviously hitting it is the only cure for cancer.


As to the decline in the quality of TV coverage, get a subscription to the NYT, WaPo, Financial Times, etc. and skip TV news. You'll learn more in an hour of reading then you will in a whole night's worth of news.

	18-08-2005 12:29									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I agree.

On both points.

I don't even turn it on anymore. PBS is still top notch and occasionally BBC. It's amazing to watch BBC's international coverage because I get a painful reminder of how ignorant I am.

Of course, with their colonial past the British are smarter than everyone else about the outside world, however, you would think with the globalization of America, we would at least be in tune with the markets we are selling our crap in.

	18-08-2005 12:44									#23
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Timexwatch As to the decline in the quality of TV coverage, get a subscription to the NYT, WaPo, Financial Times, etc. and skip TV news. You'll learn more in an hour of reading then you will in a whole night's worth of news.

No argument there. The only time I turn on TV news anymore is when a major story is just breaking -- and even then, I have my laptop booted and two browser widows open: one for the AP feed and one for the Poly discussion.

	18-08-2005 14:32									#24
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly ..... But in the end, the culprit was capitalism, and the placing of profits above public service. The only good news program in America (The NewsHour on PBS) and the best news outfit in the world (the BBC) are both at least partly insulated from the market, and it shows.

I agree that the Newshour is hands down the best news program, but the BBC is atrocious. They make more obvious factual errors than any of the network evening news programs or cable outfits. The only good thing I have to say about the BBC is that they are the only television source I have to get regular news coverage of Africa.

I'm a news junky of longstanding and agree that the quality of news reporting has declined almost as much as the quantity has increased.

	18-08-2005 15:24									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Soaps aren't the lowest common denominator?

quote: But in the end, the culprit was capitalism, and the placing of profits above public service.

You see the sympton and confuse it with the disease.
There was a very noticeable shift by the GOP media away from political news to the latest missing person.
That wasn't capitalism, it was politics and government.

So why? Cindy Sheehan? Was it some enlightened and bold move by much of the right wing media acting almost in unison to win higher ratings?

	18-08-2005 18:56									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by techumseh RTF: I don't mean to assist in moving this thread sideways; the state of news reporting in the US and other countries is an important issue. But on the Cronkite/Tet thing: What he pointed out was that the generals and the politicians had led him, and the American people to believe that the war was being won. They did not admit that the NLF was capable of such an offensive. The fact that this offensive was defeated and the NLF's offensive military capacity was largely destroyed as a result is irrelevant to the point. (Quickly replaced by NVA military capacity, BTW) The result was the military and political leadership of the US lost significant crediblity, which it never recovered.

This sounds ismilar to the current Iraq situation, except instead of outrage the general feeling here is more of ridicule. Maybe interactive media outlets cause this change?

	18-08-2005 20:03									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, there is a theory that the war was lost in your livingrooms. I doubt it was the NVA who won that victory.

So if we americans start ignoring all the bad press about Iraq from our own and foreign sources, we can still win it?