62 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
24 hour news cycle...
The 24 hour news cycle on cable TV started over 29 years ago, with CNN. It started the change in news and the internet later intensified and quickened the rate of change. It's not a "right now" thing, it has been there and building all these years.
News creating the agenda ?
Well...they covered it, but maybe they missed the story?
MSNBC also pointed to its own reporting. "Just like every other network mentioned in the ad, MSNBC covered last Saturday's protest," the network said in a statement.
Yeah, I watched some of their "coverage". They referred to it as a rally of hatred, downplayed the numbers, etc.
No doubt about it...
Now doubt about it, the National Mall has shrunk. Now a group of a few thousand people fills it up (grin).
Also, what they missed was...
that it was going to happen. Took them all by surprise and caused some soiled pants among politicians in DC.
RE: a rally of hatred
I watched it...I could feel the "love"
Just like the other tea party
Do you think it was a coincidence they called it a tea party?
They covered it. So did CNN. Fox was wrong (or lying).
You just don't get it. Like the media.
End of story.
u know... that's just a cop out response.
It is the equivalent of stating... " I'm right. and you are stoooopid " ... and you use it to end just about every debate you engage in.
You are smarter than that and most of the people on this board are too.
No it's not...
Why repeat what has already been said? If he cared to read it he'd know why I said that.
And you use it to end just about every debate you engage in. Nope. That's just a lie.
Did CNN and MSNBC provide live coverage or didn't they?
It's a simple Yes/No question; there's nothing to "get."
Hint: The answer is "Yes."
Did they MISS THE STORY or not?
That is what it's about, NOT "did they cover it."
RE: "did they cover it."
With a blanket?
Did the "miss the story"?
Were they shooting at it?
It's not that simple...
It's not as simple as yes or no. Look at the current ACORN scandal. Yes, you could say they are now covering it, but a question remains - what took them so long?
Same for Van Jones....
All you guys crack me up.
It's good that you are so easily amused.
No need to jingle the shiny keys then.
Some are amused by watching
others are amused by jingling?
Creating the agenda? well, right here too
where this article says "Fox News is under fire...", nowhere do I see where they report who's doing the shooting. I guess, if they say it's so, it must be so.
RE: who's doing the shooting.
CNN's coverage also included numerous live reports and interviews
ABC rally story was featured on the network's morning shows, nightly news broadcast
MSNBC also pointed to its own reporting
CBS detailed its coverage of the event
"CBS News had multiple crews on site
And CNN criticized Fox for its inaccurate statement
Maybe should have added
"other than themselves". It would seem to me that torching a building and sending reporters to cover the fire doesn't count as a story any more than that of the bickering that occurs among news agencies themselves.
didn't the other networks point out their coverage?
and issue statements?
Do they normally do that, unless it is a response to someones (FOX) complaints?
Doesn't really matter who in the news network
It's as Grim asks, "News creating the agenda?". The answer is "Yes".
There are some posting on this forum
saying that some networks/msm don't report, so it's not just the media talking about themselves.
It's people on forums/blogs and FOX saying the media isn't reporting the stuff they want to hear.
They should watch FOX all the time, they'll heareverything they want to hear, when they want to hear it, ALL DAY LONG.
And they'll also hear what the other guy isn't reporting. That's easier than watching the other guy and finding what they are and aren't saying, and making your own mind up.
But this kind of ad must be recognized for what it is...
How many times have we seen the same tactic used on this forum, only phrased as "where is the outrage"? It is clearly begging the question... designed to gather attention for the person's agenda - or in this case, the news channel.
"Where is the outrage" converted to "where is the coverage"? The assumption presented us is that first, it is the most important story, and second, that Fox was the only network savvy enough to recognize the fact and give the story it's due coverage. But as we all know, Fox is never satisfied to just report a story, it editorializes the story... not that the other 24 hour "news" channels don't do the same.
A few weeks ago, I mentioned I had turned to the network channels for the most level headed reporting (well, them and the BBC America). I mention this with a melancholy because I read an editorial a few days ago prognosticating the nearing demise of the network evening news shows. The sad fact is that people don't want objective news reporting... they want news coverage that enforces their opinion. Rupert Murdoch discovered this long ago in Europe, and has brought his colorful journalism style (dare I say "yellow"?) to the American shores.
"But as we all know..."
No, WE don't all know that, YOU "know" that. I dispute it. It's an ad; get over it. They had a point to make which you apparently didn't get. That's all.
If you think the network evening news shows feature objective reporting, you are living on another planet.
And YOU know what YOU know
Can others dispute it?
Will you get over it?
Stay tuned tomorrow for the next episode. (or maybe later on today)
Being a BBC America fan myself, I agree
In addition, BBC has coverage of world events we never hear about.
The evening network news shows have just 30 minutes minus the times for ads, while the cable ones have 24 hours minus the ad time.
I like the C-SPAN channels for seeing and hearing events first hand.
Cable news might be akin to newspapers in that they follow the "editorial policy" of the head honcho(s). And I will admit that sometimes the effort to present both sides of issues is wearing because of some of the people that are invited to present opposing views.
I also agree we are prone to chose those with whom we agree.
They may have 30 minutes...
The broadcast networks may have just 30 minutes for their newscast, But I would think that a story like the Senate voting to de-fund ACORN by a vote of 83-7 would be worthy of coverage.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)