What Kevin said. Yes, PGage, Kevin's being extreme here, but he's calling for ONE HOUR per day of this kind of newscast. I love opinionated news myself, but I'd also like to have a source to go to for an in-depth, honest, extremely well-researched and well-informed approach to stories. An hour of this a day doesn't seem like too much to ask. I feel like Ted Koppel used to do this on occasion. At least, whenever I tuned in to Koppel, I felt like I was watching a real live journalist searching for the truth of a matter, not a partisan with an ax to grind.
It seems like an hour of what Kevin's describing below would be a major selling point for the network, if they could make it work. Karla Robinson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kevin M. Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:26 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [TV orNotTV] Re: CNN's other King replaces Lou Dobbs On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 8:36 AM, PGage <[email protected]> quoted: > "The program will reflect what CNN is all about: the widest range of > opinions from across the political spectrum," CNN President Jon Klein > said in a statement. This tells you everything you need to know about what is wrong with broadcast journalism. News has NOTHING to do with a wide range of opinions. It has to do with facts and the delivery of accurate and necessary information. An opinion is what tarnishes a newscast. If Jon Klein doesn't understand this basic rule, he needs to run, not walk, away from his job and give it to someone better schooled in the arena than he -- a barking seal, perhaps. I mean, seriously, if enough people repeat statements like his, we run the risk of forgetting what the truth actually is. As it stands, my middle school students are too young to remember what an actual anchor does, as opposed to the newsreaders we presently have. The concept of a reporter/journalist keeping his or her opinions to his or her self is as foreign a notion as slavery. And when I talk to the students about reliable online sources, I have to spend half the time talking about personal bias and how it impacts (and detracts from) journalism today. I sincerely hope the Washington Post is accurate in reporting the change in style of the Dobbs replacement. It would be remarkable to see one hour a day of American television devoted entirely to the distribution of knowledge. No round tables. No panel discussions. No pundits. No analysts. No lobbyists. No opinions. Just, "Good evening. Here's the news..." One hopes John King doesn't get the same lofty paycheck as the veteran Dobbs, so they might be able to employ a few competent field-journalists to cover news. Note: By that, I do not mean stand up in the same location where news occurred and regurgitate a police report or press release. I'd also like to see John King announce a list of "sources" he will not be using, such as TMZ, ANY blogs, ANY partisan websites (such as HuffPo or TownHall), or any blind/anonymous sources. If there is no concrete information on a story, there should be no story. I'd also like to see him pledge to only cover the deaths of celebrities as they impact the future of civilization, and by that I mean he should pledge not to cover the deaths of celebrities. For that matter, that a celebrity or politician has given a speech or appeared somewhere is only news if said individual did something or announced something of substance. The mere act of standing at a place and speaking is not news, no matter the individual. When I do my little journalism wish-list, I often hear from people telling me it is a fanciful dream. That in order for news to get viewers (and advertisers), they must include all the aspects I so despise. I disagree. As a child (admittedly, as a geeky child), I routinely watched "60 Minutes," and, at that time, the show contained mostly long-form interviews (done on film, which gave the stories a visual credibility tape has never been able to match) with talking heads (maybe a few cutaways, mostly for ease of editing as opposed to visual interest). As a teenager (admittedly, a geeky teenager), I saw reporting of the Gulf War conducted by CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS, all of whom had bureaus in the area and sent additional reporters to gather information on their own. To watch a reporter (who has done his or her homework) confront someone, present them with hard data, and demand answers to serious questions is as compelling as television gets. Fancy graphics and touch screens and helicopters buzzing over a scene are colossal wastes of money and resources. All a good newscast needs is a camera, a microphone, and the truth. It would be nice if CNN and John King break from the pack and offer a newscast instead of an opinioncast. But, where journalism is concerned, I am not optimistic (though I hide it well, dont I?). -- Kevin M. (RPCV) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
