The 'News'

[amicus]

I am before my time, as usual, but perhaps, just perhaps, I can bring your attention to an issue before it arises and I guarantee you, it will.

I grew up in an era of Newscasting, that included Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Edward R. Murrow and a host of others of the same genre.

All fatherly males, of course, who delivered, 'read' the news, either on radio or television with a stately demeanor, serious, detached, unemotional, accurately and objectively.

That was how the news was done, way back when and it was the framework within which I learned my trade on both radio and television.

There was not twenty four hour a day cable television channels devoted to 'news' , nor were there many women, save the 'weather girl' or as Jane Fonda portrayed in the 'China Syndrome', a 'home economics' female broadcaster with tips on how to trim your ferns.

Of course, as women have become a larger and larger portion of the viewing audience, the news outlets took heed and employed more and more women to read, present, the news.

I have never watched 'Soap Opera's' or female oriented, daytime broadcasting before my recent retirement and change of schedule. Thus I am out and about during those former working hours and, germane to me personally, I seek continual updates on breaking news events.

OMG!

Women in thigh length mini skirts, low cleavage, fantastic make-up and clothing, all of them except Candy Crowely, could be models strutting down the runway, are doing the news!

Not only are they 'doing' the news, they are, 'smiling' the news, lauging the news, crying the news, making 'puppy dog eyes' at sad stories and hard faces at tragic news and empathetic faces at women's issues as they emote their compassion.

Egads!

I take it as an insult to my former Profession.

To be a little crass because it makes my point, there are some real, 'bitches' invading the news Katy Couric included, who snarl out of the television set with the emotional female screeches of indignation at events that trouble them.

What ever happened to detached objectivity in the news?

Although my sensitivity is honed from a lifetime of exposure, I suspect that soon even the feminist apologists and wimpy males will begin to turn their noses sky high at the antics of the females in the news.

I realize that to even acknowledge my plausible truth on this forum will relegate you to the 'black list' of Amicus afficionado's, so I don't expect you to bare your soul.

Rather, leave this thread unattended as so many are.

Thanks...



Amicus...

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

Naked News

Maybe you should follow my example and only watch the Naked News.

After a while you get board watching the women strip and actually pay attention to the news.

 

[oggbashan]

News is now part of the entertainment industry.

Ratings matter more than content.

Og

 

[Liar]

What ever happened to detached objectivity in the news?

You may find my answer flippant and pinko commie lefty hodgepodge, but if you know me by now, you should know that that's not the case.

What happened? Free market, baby. The inccreased competition from other media outlets - cable, digital, the Internet especially - have driven the news giants to where they are today. The news networks compete for customers. Their customers are advertisers. Advertisers don't want too much substance and depth in the news. They want infotainment. Because television delivered in snack sized, easily digestable four minute blocks is what give them the most bang for their buck. MTV taught them that. The advertisers don't want seriousness and calm, rational demeanor from suited old men. They want Colgate smiles, loud music and cool grahics. If not people will notice when the news ended and the ad began.

Also, objective reporting is out the window. For the same reasons. Hearing stuff that may not play to their core values makes people angry. And angry people are less susceptible to ads.

The fact that you get your panties in a bunch over girl cooties, and don't see that it's not just the women, but also the men, that bring the silly to the news thse days, says more about you than the media though.

 

[christabelll]

News is now part of the entertainment industry.

Ratings matter more than content.

Og

my sentiments too--- its all about making money and who can be more dramatically "affected" by what they are sniping about....

At least he didnt pull the "---------" card.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Maybe you should follow my example and only watch the Naked News.

After a while you get board watching the women strip and actually pay attention to the news.

I could never watch something that so strongly degrades women by having them remove clothing and display themselves as objects. The act is disgusting, the idea itself disgusts me.

For shame!!!



But should I know a friend who might be interested, where might I...He find such programming?



Q_C

 

[stickwork]

I am before my time, as usual, but perhaps, just perhaps, I can bring your attention to an issue before it arises and I guarantee you, it will.

I grew up in an era of Newscasting, that included Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Edward R. Murrow and a host of others of the same genre.

All fatherly males, of course, who delivered, 'read' the news, either on radio or television with a stately demeanor, serious, detached, unemotional, accurately and objectively.

That was how the news was done, way back when and it was the framework within which I learned my trade on both radio and television.

There was not twenty four hour a day cable television channels devoted to 'news' , nor were there many women, save the 'weather girl' or as Jane Fonda portrayed in the 'China Syndrome', a 'home economics' female broadcaster with tips on how to trim your ferns.

Of course, as women have become a larger and larger portion of the viewing audience, the news outlets took heed and employed more and more women to read, present, the news.

I have never watched 'Soap Opera's' or female oriented, daytime broadcasting before my recent retirement and change of schedule. Thus I am out and about during those former working hours and, germane to me personally, I seek continual updates on breaking news events.

OMG!

Women in thigh length mini skirts, low cleavage, fantastic make-up and clothing, all of them except Candy Crowely, could be models strutting down the runway, are doing the news!

Not only are they 'doing' the news, they are, 'smiling' the news, lauging the news, crying the news, making 'puppy dog eyes' at sad stories and hard faces at tragic news and empathetic faces at women's issues as they emote their compassion.

Egads!

I take it as an insult to my former Profession.

To be a little crass because it makes my point, there are some real, 'bitches' invading the news Katy Couric included, who snarl out of the television set with the emotional female screeches of indignation at events that trouble them.

What ever happened to detached objectivity in the news?

Although my sensitivity is honed from a lifetime of exposure, I suspect that soon even the feminist apologists and wimpy males will begin to turn their noses sky high at the antics of the females in the news.

I realize that to even acknowledge my plausible truth on this forum will relegate you to the 'black list' of Amicus afficionado's, so I don't expect you to bare your soul.

Rather, leave this thread unattended as so many are.

Thanks...



Amicus...

I have no problem with women broadcasting the news. Depending upon what television station you watch there are lousy reporters of both genders, as well as good ones. All other things being equal, I'd rather look at an attractive woman than an attractive man.

Walter Cronkite, Eric Sevareid, Edward R. Murrow were ages ago - and as to
being "detached, unemotional, accurat[e] and objectiv[e], I believe Cronkite broke down when delivering the news of the Kennedy assassination, and later expressed opinions about the Vietnam war that many believe had a profound effect upon popular opinion.

Dan Rather ending his newscasts with the word "courage" was more annoying to me than most any lame comment by a current bimbo or nimbo newscaster.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I miss Walter Cronkite.

I prefer to read the news than watch it.

and oh god, I'll be beaten for this...but......I prefer men reading the news, I'm less distracted............except for Dan Rather, I didn't care for him too much.

 

[Liar]

For anyone wanting a spot-on analysis of what the news media has become lately, needs to pick up a copy of this.

 

[jomar]

Yep. Entertainment...flash and sizzle...repeated every half hour. They all want your dollar.

 

[oggbashan]

One of the television news practices I object to is talks to camera broadcast live from outside a building, for example:

Last night the BBC TV News had an item about mislaid security files. They had a man standing outside the Ministry of Defence building to present the item.

Why? The Ministry of Defence building isn't particularly aesthetic, and certainly not after dark.

Then there were live broadcasts from inside the House of Commons.

The patch of grass across the road from the Houses of Parliament is a pleasant place to sit down while walking around London but I don't want to see it on the TV News every night, nor do I want to see the bored policeman outside Number 10 Downing Street.

All these items could be presented from inside the studio. That would be more comfortable for the Political Editor, the Security Expert or whoever AND would be easier for the viewer who wouldn't be distracted by passers-by in the background.

Sometimes they do it in the pouring rain. Why? The presenter and the crew have to get wet so that we can see the outside of an unremarkable building where nothing is happening.

"We went to the Ministry of Defence (cut to live presenter outside Ministry of Defence) but they had no comment."

Of course they didn't comment. It's ten o'clock at night, pouring with rain. The Minister has to approve anything they might say and he's inside the warm and dry Houses of Parliament working out how to respond to this latest fuck-up. The Duty Officer at the Ministry of Defence has more sense than to upstage his Minister and is probably laughing at the soaking wet TV crew.

Just because TV can broadcast live is no reason to send TV crews scuttling around London for appropriate locations as backdrops.

Og ( Who reads it all in far more detail in his newspaper anyway!)

 

[amicus]

I could never watch something that so strongly degrades women by having them remove clothing and display themselves as objects. The act is disgusting, the idea itself disgusts me.

For shame!!!



But should I know a friend who might be interested, where might I...He find such programming?



Q_C

!!!~~~

That brought a guffaw, thanks!

Ami...

 

[sr71plt]

I just check the news channels to see what stories are running. So it could be presented by Mr. Ed the talking horse, for all I care.

 

[amicus]

You may find my answer flippant and pinko commie lefty hodgepodge, but if you know me by now, you should know that that's not the case.

What happened? Free market, baby. The inccreased competition from other media outlets - cable, digital, the Internet especially - have driven the news giants to where they are today. The news networks compete for customers. Their customers are advertisers. Advertisers don't want too much substance and depth in the news. They want infotainment. Because television delivered in snack sized, easily digestable four minute blocks is what give them the most bang for their buck. MTV taught them that. The advertisers don't want seriousness and calm, rational demeanor from suited old men. They want Colgate smiles, loud music and cool grahics. If not people will notice when the news ended and the ad began.

Also, objective reporting is out the window. For the same reasons. Hearing stuff that may not play to their core values makes people angry. And angry people are less susceptible to ads.

The fact that you get your panties in a bunch over girl cooties, and don't see that it's not just the women, but also the men, that bring the silly to the news thse days, says more about you than the media though.

~~~

Hmmm...I expected the thread to be ignored, or minimal response at best, thas what I get for thinking...sighs...

Instead, we get a usual suspect, claiming not to be such, slamming the free market and capitalism and indeed the viewing public, all over again.

The concept that the free market place caters to the lowest common denominator of humanity, is not a new thing, I suppose you know that.

As you might expect, I suspect other things are at play here. I refer you to Trysails latest, in which he posts an article showing the Global Warming Farce as a coalition or conspiracy, of like minded groups.

Media and the Arts have joined together to promote, in all aspects, a generation rooted in the 60's, that has completely society as we know it.

Whether it is women 'doing' the news, the 'token' black or Asian, the world view of the left, it is a one way street to a left liberal mindset that is all pervasive and you blame it on the free market.

Sighs...

Once upon a time there was a thing called, "The Silent Majority", those who do not favor socialism or even social democracies. Those opposed to abortion and gay pride, those who do not want socialized medicine or government tinkering with the economy or the spirit of the basic American dream as it rises from our basic documents and history.

They are 'silent' because they have very little voice in the left liberal media. You can watch newscast after newscast, film after film, documentary after documentary and find nothing but advocacy for the liberal point of view.

Perhaps, as some implied, I represent an old fashioned, traditional concept of morality and ethics and even choice when it comes to being informed about current events.

Since the concept of moral imperatives, right and wrong, good and bad, has been momentarily displaced and replaced with the ambivalent, subjective, relativistic mentality of the left, then what else should one expect, of course?

This is such a vast subject and so apparent to all, that it amazes me sometimes to see the sheep like behavior of supposedly intelligent people, authors and such that simply fall in line.

As in the Katrina disaster that ignores the African American population of New Orleans that bascially reverted to savagery. Like the Texas FLDS commune wherein the cult was judged and sentenced on this forum without a whimper.

Like the anti-war and anti-Bush contingent that dominate the media and the forum. As if there were no opposing points of view...and absolutist stand from those who deny even the concept of absolute and believe with all their pink little hearts that they are 'right', in a world where right and wrong are dissed without thought.

Even now, as I have the news, Fox News no less, on in the background, forgotten are the Midwest floods and tornado's, forgotten is a major news event in Iraq and they all mourn the sudden heart attack and death of one of their own, Tim Russert, as if his death was a news event.

Thus, it will surprise and amaze you when it happens, but the tide will turn, the pendulum will swing and the liberal left domination of all things germane will wane and fade.

I most likely won't be around to see it happen, I may, but...I hope you will writhe as you recall, "I told you so!"

Amicus...

 

[DesertPirate]

What ever happened to detached objectivity in the news?

Cronkite killed it when he made his comments on the Tet offensive and killed all support for the war that was left. Broadcasters realized the power they had and have tried to manipulate everything that has happened since.

 

[SeaCat]

What happened to detached factual reporting of the news? Good question and one I have been asking for quite some time.

Personaly I believe it is partly "Free Market" but not in the way that has been commented on.

Think about it this way. A) People want to, no they demand to be entertained. B) People don't want to think, they are much happier being told what to think about something.

The station or news channel that both entertains the most people while showing the stories with the spin that the most people want will win. They get a higher following which means more money.

This is much the same for any channel. If it doesn't show what people want to see then the people will not watch that channel. If people don't watch that channel, well you were in the bussiness for years and know the results.

Cat

 

[Liar]

Instead, we get a usual suspect, claiming not to be such, slamming the free market and capitalism and indeed the viewing public, all over again.

The concept that the free market place caters to the lowest common denominator of humanity, is not a new thing, I suppose you know that.

No, the mass market caters to the lowest common denominator. The free market merely allows it to.

Now, the free market does also allow for alternatives to emerge. If there is a market for serious news, serious news will happen again. But it takes time and a lot of trial and error to find a sustainable business model for Murrow style television these days.

And in the mean time, we're stuck with the mass market, which turned into infotainment much faster than the rise of demand for better stuff.

You say it turned into infotainment because of some sinister feminist-socialist conspiracy? I say you need a tin foil hat.

 

[Guest]

I am before my time, as usual, . . .
Amicus...

*snicker*

Right.

No, the mass market caters to the lowest common denominator. The free market merely allows it to.

Now, the free market does also allow for alternatives to emerge. If there is a market for serious news, serious news will happen again. But it takes time and a lot of trial and error to find a sustainable business model for Murrow style television these days.

And in the mean time, we're stuck with the mass market, which turned into infotainment much faster than the rise of demand for better stuff.

You say it turned into infotainment because of some sinister feminist-socialist conspiracy? I say you need a tin foil hat.

After I finish making cookies he can have some of mine.

 

[BOSTONFICTIONWRITER]

I could never watch something that so strongly degrades women by having them remove clothing and display themselves as objects. The act is disgusting, the idea itself disgusts me.

For shame!!!



But should I know a friend who might be interested, where might I...He find such programming?



Q_C

LMAO

For your friend, naked news was once free. Unfortunately it is a pay site. You can Google naked news.

 

[DeeZire]

To be a little crass because it makes my point, there are some real, 'bitches' invading the news Katy Couric included, who snarl out of the television set with the emotional female screeches of indignation at events that trouble them.

You can thank your buddies over at FOX News for starting the 'snarling the news' trend.

So, if you don't like sensationalized news, why in God's name do you have FOX News on?

If you could only step out of your body and take a look at your myopic reality from the outside, you'd die laughing. Have you considered starting your own forum, titled, "It's still 1955, and no women are allowed here" ?

Good luck turning back time.

 

[S-Des]

You can thank your buddies over at FOX News for starting the 'snarling the news' trend.

Funny, I always thought it was Crossfire (which the last time I checked, was on CNN). Actually, I'm pretty sure Weekend Update started it with Dan Aykroyd and Jane Curtain.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I never really watch American news. I find the presenters slightly plastic, with their whiter than snow teeth, botoxed features and hairstyles that don't move a millimetre for the entire programme.

But in the UK I've found the female presenters all very professional.

Sure, there are times when a couple push the boundaries with what they wear, but that's half the fun. And if you can't concentrate on the news because a bit of cleavage or leg distracts you, maybe you should move to Saudi, where women aren't allowed to even answer the door unless their entire body is covered.

Wasn't it you who started up the thread about female sports commentators, too?

Really speaking, you'd prefer it if we all stuck to the cleaning and secretarial trades, wouldn't you?

Seriously, though, Ami - why not move to a Muslim state? You'd never have to look at another woman again

 

[S-Des]

But in the UK I've found the female presenters all very professional.

I prefer the French reporters (especially Melissa Theuriau.....{drool} ).

 

[scheherazade_79]

I prefer the French reporters (especially Melissa Theuriau.....{drool} ).

http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l16/scheherazade_79/melissa.jpg
Melissa Theuriau​

I think we have the same taste in women... I need to start watching the French news....

*swooooon*

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS

Oh! We've simply re-invented the 60s Weather Chick in the guise of Info Babe. The other thing is, whatever women get into becomes a pink collar ghetto. Vocations lose their prestige when the girls come aboard. Tits are like an albatross hanging from their necks.