So your contention is that, on networks claiming the description “cable news” there is a small percentage of news programing, so they aren’t entirely worthless. OK, that’s one viable perspective. But I prefer the viability of my take — that calling oneself a cable news channel should mean the channel is devoted almost entirely, if not entirely, to works of journalism and reporting.
Looking at coverage of the tragic school shootings yesterday (really only the bigger of the two was covered because cable is lightly staffed on a Friday evening), it reminded me that news channels used to have bureaus all across the country (and internationally). Lacking that, what we ended up with was a video feed from a local Texas tv station, or — worse — they used the audio of the local Texas tv stations. I realize this expands the thread beyond just cable news, but even if the local TV “reporters” could grasp covering such a story at the local level (they can’t), they are frankly incapable of framing the events in a national context (i.e.-gun laws that differ from state to state, comparing NRA campaign contributions to Texas politicians vs those from other states, differing law enforcement techniques/reactions by LEOs). No, what viewers get during breaking news is the opposite of journalism. It is a camera pointed at the site of where something occurred while a talking head points and says, “look!” Then they have talking heads in a panel who blame political parties or lobbyists, which both might be true, but they aren’t researched and fact checked opinions... they’re just talking heads babbling between offering thoughts and prayers. Most of what occurs are “recaps” of information already known and already given, which — again — something already known is the opposite of news. And that is why I feel these channels fail us. I don’t know who they are serving, other than themselves. I can feel more informed following Twitter than I can watching cable news (I did both yesterday). “Informed and nuanced discussion” about the news is still miles apart from reporting the news. And I’m not saying there isn’t a place for that on TV; I am saying the place for that should not be on channels calling themselves cable news. On Sat, May 19, 2018 at 8:39 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > A few weeks ago I agreed in passing with one of Kevin’s periodic > dismissals of cable news channels as not worthy of that name, as they are > purveyors of opinion and propaganda and worse. It was not the place to give > a more nuanced take on cable news, but I have been wanting to, and will > briefly now. > > There was a time when I got most of my news from CNN, but some years into > the Bush Administration and its unnecessary war, and CNN’s complete spiral > down into theatrical and empty yelling matches, I opted out. For a while I > recorded Newshour every day and watched it when I could, but often found > that by the time I did it was already 5 hours or more old, so I would > update online. Soon I found I could get better and more timely news solely > online - which paradoxically meant for the most part that I now get my news > they way my father did before me, from newspapers - though I don’t have to > wait to get it delivered in the morning, and I can read three or four from > around the country and world. I now pay for an online subscription to the > NYT, which I use many times each day, and max out my free access to the > WaPo and LAT. I also regularly read stories from NPA, the AP and BBC, and > The Hill and Politico, supplemented by long form journalism produced by > places like the Atlantic, New Republic, Economist and Vanity Fair. Unless > it is literally breaking news that happens to break while I am watching > MSNBC’s live coverage (which is for a half hour early in the morning and 30 > to 60 minutes around 6:30 or 7:00 in the evening) I almost never learn > about anything in the news for the first time from a television source. > > I do spend more time (for the last couple of years) watching Cable News > than I used to, and almost always it is MSNBC. The programs I watch (mostly > the evening shows) provide relatively little of what I used to consider a > traditional newscast. Clearly there is a liberal slant to the POV, and an > even more transparent and self-conscious anti-Trump commitment. Much of > this is not news, it is opinion and analysis- and the quality varies > greatly, from thoughtful, informed and penetrating to superficial and > pandering. For this kind of opinionated analysis I get the most from Rachel > Maddow, who at least a once or twice a week dives deeply into the mountain > of information and surfaces with a complex and relevant story that > illustrates something more than just the headline of the day. She is of > course very much a voice from the left. > > But I find that MSNBC (and, I gather CNN does much the same thing these > days, though they have left such a bad taste in my mouth that I rarely > watch them any more. Perhaps Fox News does something similar as well in > their own way) provides something other than analysis (done well or > poorly), opinion and propaganda. Its bread and butter seems to be panels of > actual newspaper reporters, brought on to actually discuss the day’s news. > There is relatively little yelling and melodramatics on these panels > (though I’m sure Trumpests would be irritated by the amount of head shaking > that does on about the latest outrageous thing uncovered about the > Administration). I find often that reporters who have written stories in > the NYT or WaPo or Atlantic or VF or AP that I have already read are on for > 10 to 15 minutes and able to not just summarize their story but put it into > some perspective - often relating it to stories they published the previous > week or month or year. They are often on panel with other reporters who > have published similar or related stories, and the panel then provides a > means of fitting together pieces that form part of a puzzle. > > By far the best program for this kind of thing is Brian Williams “The 11th > Hour”, which comes on at 8:00 pm in California, but I guess 11:00 pm on the > East Coast (hmm, I just got that). I know Williams has come in for a lot of > scorn on this list and other places for his self-aggrandizing memory > illusions (which I have tried to contextualize in the past), but his fall > from grace has made him a bargain for MSNBC - a top rank broadcaster > operating in a less charged environment, with more time to actually explore > the day’s events. And coming at the end of the day, when many reporters > have filed their stories for the next morning already, he actually has a > head start on tomorrow’s news. I said I rarely learn new things from TV > news anymore, but when I do it is because a newspaper reporter is on > Williams’ show discussing a story that has just posted on their website and > will be in the next day’s paper. > > So, yes, I agree with Kevin that cable news is not a place that provides > much independent, reliable, objective news, and it is rife with opinion and > pandering. But I do not agree with dismissing cable news as worthless, and > (at least on MSNBC, and I suspect on CNN as well) in recent years cable > news has become a place where you can find informed and fairly serious and > nuanced discussion of the very best journalism being currently produced by > newspaper and magazine reporters. If I ran MSNBC the main change I would > make would be the addition of three hour-long actual newscasts (morning, > midday and evening), which would also give them some more objective news > voices to handle big breaking stories. > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
