Rather...as usual...

[Larry Gude]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/20/MTFH18190_2005-09-20_03-11-20_FLE011365.html


Dan doesn't like the news world as it is. You know, the one he so much helped bring about by his strong leadership in bias.

Tidbits:

Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career.

Fear. Of???

Addressing the Fordham University School of Law in Manhattan, occasionally forcing back tears, he said that in the intervening years, politicians "of every persuasion" had gotten better at applying pressure on the conglomerates that own the broadcast networks. He called it a "new journalism order."

In other words, politicians are fighting back? Again, fear of what?

He said this pressure -- along with the "dumbed-down, tarted-up" coverage, the advent of 24-hour cable competition and the chase for ratings and demographics -- has taken its toll on the news business. "All of this creates a bigger atmosphere of fear in newsrooms," Rather said

So, Dan style bias is not dumb but good, fearless journalism? Dan is sad that the monopoly is over. The one that had almost all our news coming from 3 faces every night fro 3 decades.

Fear of competition I gather, Dan.

there's a certain kind of intimidation brought to bear these days, particularly from the religious right.

Of course! Those nasty old beheaders and car bombers!

Rather praised the coverage of Hurricane Katrina by the new generation of TV journalists and acknowledged that he would have liked to have reported from the Gulf Coast. "Covering hurricanes is something I know something about," he said.

"It's been one of television news' finest moments," Rather said of the Katrina coverage. He likened it to the coverage of President Kennedy's assassination in 1963.

"They were willing to speak truth to power," Rather said of the coverage.

Truth to power.


I truly wonder if Dan Rather ever, late at night, understands that his 40 year left/right bias, climaxed by his pit bull mentality with Nixon and Bush 41 contrasted with his nearly sexual reverence of Clinton is the primary reason so many people lost faith in journalism and the evening news? It didn't happen over night.


Yes, we all want truth spoken to power, to feel that a reporter is trying to get the truth known, protecting the public trust by asking tough, honest questions.

But, by definition, a reporter can NOT choose sides so blatantly, so publicly as Rather has over the years. When a Democrat is in a position of power he/she is now the power we want truth spoken to.

It's probably naive to think for a second Rather doesn't know exactly what he was doing over the years but he and his colleagues always come back to this thing, that they are JOURNALISTS.

The evening news as it was once known, as the source of truth, fell apart because, at the end of the day, Dan Rather and others like him, were no more than partisans that violated their special place and the trust that used to go with it.

 

[Bustem' Down]

The media is controlled by the government, they just don't know it yet.

 

[Pete]

He is pouting because history will rightly show that he was a partisan hack. He should be angry at himself because he lacked the skill to conceal his bias better. He is also wretching that he is, and has always been so right minded, yet the public was too stupid to see it his way....can you say elitist snob?........I knew you could.

Basically the freak is now going to travel the nation, shedding a tear and throwing a hissy fit because there is no "Dan Rather day" and a life size wax likeness of himself in the CBS news room, forever casting his discerning eyes upon the news of the day.

What a pathetic troll.

I am smarter than Cronkite

I was better than Brokaw

Jennings isn't even American

I was framed by FOX news

Ted Turner and Rupert Murdock are the anti-christ and they robbed me of my legacy

Bush made me look like a freaked out pathetic goober, and Karl Rove helped him.

 

[Railroad]

Dan WHO?

 

[rraley]

This thread brings up some more substantive points than the idea that Dan Rather is a dumbass. Of the 3 network anchors he was definitely the most biased towards more liberal causes and he did NOTHING to disprove that claim. Hell, he was even the keynote speaker at a fundraiser for the Democratic Party in Texas. While on some of this, Rather is off-base becuase he tries to paint this in a negative light regarding conservatives, many of his points regarding modern news coverage is very legitimate and shared by many media critics.

First of all, there is a climate of fear found in many newsrooms today. It is not, however, fear because of conservatism. It is a fear that comes out of the fear that a journalist or network will lose out on a scoop to another. With so much competition today, the early leads on stories are desired even more than in the past. This leads to an almost dominant nature for many sources as they can pick and choose who they want to give the story to and allows the journalist to essentially write a story the way that the source wants them to. This fear leads to premature reporting of many news stories that can contain inaccurate facts because the source is attempting to create a certain form of spin. The 24-hour news cycle has played a large part in the creation of this fear and excessive desire to be the first to get a story.

Secondly, there is indeed a new journalism order, and it is NOT for the better. The Internet is now the largest source of news for the American population. News on the Internet is often more inaccurate, less factual, and more biased than the news one receives in traditional media forms. People often get their news today from bloggers who combine fact with opinion all too often, thus creating a world where neither is distinguishable. Traditional media forms such as newspapers and the networks, meanwhile, are increasingly owned by corporate conglomerates who could care less about journalistic values. For these conglomerates, profit is the name, not journalism, and this has led to reduced coverage of international news in order to save money and less space for journalists in favor of advertisements. This is all done for the sake of profit margins, which in the news world today, is often above 10% as opposed to the typical 3% it was in the 1980s.

Now I am not sure how effective politicians are at affecting the conglomerates, but I can say that other nations have done a good job at influencing the conglomerates, and as such, news coverage. Coverage of events in China has been remarkably toned down by NBC and FOX News because the parent companies of both are seeking to expand their market in the nation; do you really expect either network to make a fair and balanced report regarding events in China?

So Dan is off-base about the religious right and the reasoning, but there is some substance in here.

 

[2ndAmendment]

The major problem is the news is no longer the news; it is entertainment. Ratings or circulation rather than facts are what drive what is reported and how. The sad fact is the average American is tabloid drawn rather than fact drawn. Sensationalism rather than journalism is the "news" of today.

 

[Larry Gude]

Rr...

I, for one, do not think Rather a dumb ass. Quite the opposite; I think he knew full well what he was doing and I think he believed it critical to the well being of the nation...as he saw it. It gave his life the self important meaning he, I postulate, craved.

Think about it; who is more useless and over paid than a TV reporter?

Here, read this: "The sun came up at 7 am."

Rather and company, based on their celebrity and the percieved power of their status had to justify, somehow, their fame and fortune. Either that or face being no more than trained monkeys with nice hair. Hence, 'the cause', search for meaning.

I think you are dead on when you say:

It is not, however, fear because of conservatism. It is a fear that comes out of the fear that a journalist or network will lose out on a scoop to another. With so much competition today, the early leads on stories are desired even more than in the past. This leads to an almost dominant nature for many sources as they can pick and choose who they want to give the story to and allows the journalist to essentially write a story the way that the source wants them to.

THAT is the problem and they, journalists, have the power, in fact they are the ONLY ones with this power, to fix it overnight.

Publicly identify your source. Every time. With your story. Hold yourself and your collegues to that standard.

They all know who one anothers sources are and that is the game; who is talking to who? There sense of self importance comes from where they are on the pecking order and where they are is based on who is talking to them.

They know, but won't tell us because then they, an individual reporter, won't get the story; someone else will. How arrogant is that? We, the people, are the only ones kept out of the loop on this little game.

Then, 'journalists' have the nerve, the gall, to selectively hold everyone else to a higher standard; what did YOU know and when did you KNOW it?

Honest politician: "Well, I knew this and I knew it then but I didn't say or do anything about it at the time it would have helped because it wasn't in my best interest at that time."

Honest reporter: "That's OK because I had the story then as well but it wasn't in MY best interest to report it then either!"

Together: "Chuckle, chuckle, we're so cool!"

By insisting on naming sources the media instantly has FULL credibility and everyone else is just a rumor mill. You may argue that it will put a chill on what stories come out but I say to you; what is more important:

Credible, honest news that serves us all.

Or

The dog and pony show we have now that only serves the players.



Again, I say the story WILL come out, regardless, because you ARE right; it's that power the un-named source has now that is the trouble. As it is, un-named sources are playing the same ego game as the media; it's not the story but who tells it first. That's all they're doing now; trying to be first and pay nothing for the status this gives them.

 

[vraiblonde]

many of his points regarding modern news coverage is very legitimate and shared by many media critics

And disagreed with by many media critics. What's your point?

We get emails from people like Dan Rather all the time. They ##### because they have to pay for their classified ad. They ##### because their computer isn't working and somehow that's our fault. They ##### because they can't use obscenities in the forums.

And they ALWAYS say, "And I'm not the only one who feels this way," like it's supposed to impress us that not only are they stupid, but they have stupid friends as well.

So Dan Rather can say what he wants. It's still not a dog.

 

[Pete]

So, Dan style bias is not dumb but ...tion story scam. I think he has heartburn.

 

[rraley]

The major problem is the news is no longer the news; it is entertainment. Ratings or circulation rather than facts are what drive what is reported and how. The sad fact is the average American is tabloid drawn rather than fact drawn. Sensationalism rather than journalism is the "news" of today.

Bingo, 2A...BINGO. One of the few times where I gotta give ya some credit for agreeing with me.

 

[Larry Gude]

I totally disagree...

Bingo, 2A...BINGO. One of the few times where I gotta give ya some credit for agreeing with me.

The Big Three watched their ratings go over the proverbial Niagra as first CNN, then CNBC and then Fox went up stream.

CBS, NBC and ABC played games with one another, adding silliness and poor reporting and star power in place of real news in what they claimed was a ratings race which was really just an ego boom all the while losing market to CNN because they were NEWS oriented and then CNN added their goof crew and lost to Fox and now the crowd moves to Fox because of at least the perception of getting the story first, news.

As Fox adds more and more personality and less and less news, the door re-opens in the wake of the dinosauers leaving the network scene to regain their credibility and intergrity through...reporting the news.

A cycle.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...

CBS, NBC and ABC played games with one another, adding silliness and poor reporting and star power in place of real news in what they claimed was a ratings race which was really just an ego boom all the while losing market to CNN because they were NEWS oriented and then CNN added their goof crew and lost to Fox and now the crowd moves to Fox because of at least the perception of getting the story first, news.

As Fox adds more and more personality and less and less news, the door re-opens in the wake of the dinosauers leaving the network scene to regain their credibility and intergrity through...reporting the news.

A cycle.

Disagree? By what you post, it appears you agree that the news went down the toilet in favor of entertainment.

I agree that Fox is headed toward entertainment with Dayside and some other stuff.

I, for one, want the facts when I watch or listen to the news. I don't want cutesy or fluff or opinion. Give me the facts; I'll decide.

 

[Larry Gude]

You and everyone else...

I, for one, want the facts when I watch or listen to the news. I don't want cutesy or fluff or opinion. Give me the facts; I'll decide.

You said:

Ratings or circulation rather than facts are what drive what is reported and how

My point is that it is NOT ratings driven; that is the excuse they give for putting out puff pieces; it's what the market wants, they tell us. That is not true because if it were then there would have been no room for CNN and then no room for FOX.

If it were true, their numbers would have gone UP. They did not. There has been a steady decline, for over 25 years, of traditional evening news viewership that is directly attributable to the rise of personality driven news. In other words, people have steadily been leaving behind what they say we want.

So I say again if it were ratings driven, then they'd do just the news.
All through the downfall of the big 3 their ratings continued to plummet, only stealing a few numbers from one another in an ever shrinking market.

You've been around long enough to remember how suddenly, it seems, it was no longer 'The News with Howard K. Smith". It became Peter/Dan and Tom's take on the news. It became personality driven and the super stars made it
so. They said 'we have to do things this way because that's what people want!"

When that did not work they said (as their salaries climbed to movie star levels and their numbers continued to shrink) "It's not working because we need more 'WE', it's not enough OUR WAY because it's what the people want".

Audience continues to fall away as people search for the news, first CNN, then FOX and now the WWW. Jennings is dead and Rather is gone and no one misses them... except them.

What were they going to do? Was Peter Jennings going to say HE was the problem? Was he going to say that people don't want his slant, that they just want the news? Is Dan Rather ever going to say that he betrayed ever single jounalistic principle in the book because his bias, his thoughts, were more important to him than his trade?

No. It HAD to be 'what the people want'. The people wanted 'Dan! Dan!."

Nope.

So, again, it was not ratings driven.

 

[2ndAmendment]

So, again, it was not ratings driven.

Everything in the broadcast industry is ratings driven. Everything. I was in it as a DJ for over 10 years. I was part of a team that took a station from number 5 to number 1. That was a big deal. Ratings. Everyone in the broadcast industry waits for the "book" to come out. Where does the station rank? Where do I rank? Ratings, ratings, ratings. The ARB is almighty in the broadcast industry. Careers are made and lost by the ARB.

The big three honchos had their heads in the sand. Cable news "didn't exist" and "certainly couldn't compete with them". The big three were competing with themselves. CNN only partially signaled the death knell of the big three. CNN was basically more of the same with less personality (at first). Then Fox came along and offered a different perspective. Fox used to be and probably still is more middle ground, non-biased, if you will. I say that because I would find myself agreeing at times and disagreeing at times with the position presented usually by the person being interviewed. The interviewee, reporter, for the most part, did not appear to have a dog in the race.

Even after CNN and Fox came along, cable did not have the numbers that the big three had. That is why Fox would say, "Number one in cable news." and not, "Number one in news." Now, they say, "Number one in news.", because Fox's number exceed those of the big three or the not so big three.

Ratings drive the broadcast industry over the air and over the wire.

 

[vraiblonde]

Everything in the broadcast industry is ratings driven. Everything. I was in it as a DJ for over 10 years. I was part of a team that took a station from number 5 to number 1. That was a big deal. Ratings. Everyone in the broadcast industry waits for the "book" to come out. Where does the station rank? Where do I rank? Ratings, ratings, ratings. The ARB is almighty in the broadcast industry. Careers are made and lost by the ARB.

And that is exactly the truth.

 

[Larry Gude]

I guess we should clarify then...

...when you say 'ratings driven' I took you to mean WINNING the ratings, meaning overall, national market share, not a growing share of a shrinking pie.

I was part of a team that took a station from number 5 to number 1

You went from 5 to 1 IN A MARKET, yes? Or national? Did you become #1 AND lose overall numbers, only less so than your competitors all while new competitors moved in to glean the market you were all, 1-5, pushing away in your quest to unseat each other? That's what the Big three are doing.

Or did you capture a growing share of a growing market all the while keeping new competitors out because there was no market you were driving to them?

If overall, national market share was the ratings driving the big three, then, clearly, they were not successful in their quest, agreed? They have constantly lost overall numbers while trying to be #1 vs. the other 2, agreed?

ABC, NBC and CBS may have won some ratings game between themselves but they, obviously, did not win the over all game as if they did, there could not be a CNN nor FOX.

My gun is bigger than Sharons and if that is the rating I am competing for, I claim to win, that I was driven by those ratings. When we pull the lens back, we find your gun bigger than mine because we were so locked in our own battle we paid no attention to what you were doing. I still claim to be ratings driven, just ones that are irrelevent.

The Redskins can claim they are winning the 'ratings game' against the Cowboys and if the Cowboys, not the Superbowl, are the goal, then they are right but no one cares except them; everyone elses wants to see the Superbowl.

I don't know how else to clarify this; The ratings they were driven by were the WRONG ones unless the goal was to have what we have today; distrust of the major media, ever shrinking market share, stronger and more competitors. They tell us we want trash so they are not to blame. We reject the trash and move to what we actually want; good news reporting, and they can call it what they want.

I hear what you are saying about the concept of the ratings driving everything but it misses the larger point and that is what I am trying to make clear. The trash TV they claimed the market wanted has not gained them larger national numbers. On the contrary it has opened up a huge market that is now not only competing with them, but winning.

I can produce the best poinsettias in the world for January sales and have Arbitron tell me I am leading the ratings by miles. I can then say 'See!? It's the ratings!" In the mean time, Christmas is still in December. People still want good news.

They can say it's ratings driven, their bosses can says it's ratings driven and they can report that it's ratings driven. They can call it a dog all they want.

It still don't bark, don't hunt and don't sleep on the porch.

Just ask FOX and, hell, yourself and me.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Larry,
Did you miss this part of my post?

The big three honchos had their heads in the sand. Cable news "didn't exist" and "certainly couldn't compete with them".

And yeah, in a market. The ARB is by market.

 

[Lenny]

When you bring up Rather...

...my initial reaction is...