dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Watch a few hours of PBS then a few hours of FOX and youll see what I mean pretty quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 It creeps into pretty much all their programs... Iv never calculated a percentage though. News is probably about 10% of their programming, the rest is editorializing, shows like Larry King that interview Liza Manelli or Barbara streissand 3 times a week. Theres still the same hour worth of real news that people watched at 6pm in the 70's, but not its watered down with 23 hours of fluff. Entertainment news is not their bread and butter....you are correct though, even though there are 16 hours of programming, the amount of daily news has not multiplied by 16 times..and even if it did, that would be pointless...no one wacthes CNN or fox or any outlet 16 hours straight. Instead there are programmes that offer information...business news, personal finance news, health....and even talk shows. Talk shows are attractive to network programmers, not because they attract huge audiences, they don't. They are attractive because the ratio of production costs to audience is very good. In other words you can attract less audience than prime time, earn less revenue from ad sales but still make the same profit. Real news is expensive. And real news on non all news networks are loss leaders...they don't make money. Even when they cover celebrity fluff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 (edited) No sorry. In this case market research teams determine content so that they can reach a certain demographic. Thats what ratings driven content is. Yes but you are missing the point. McDonalds doesn't advertise on every channel every hour. You have to look elsewhere for ad revenue and sometimes that revenue is found in audiences that want economic forecasting...believe me, market research teams have already figured that out and market research teams don't determine the content (producers do that), but they do see if there is a market for it, which is quite different. No one want to spend money on producing a show that no one will watch. The CBC excepting... Edited January 12, 2011 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Entertainment news is not their bread and butter....you are correct though, even though there are 16 hours of programming, the amount of daily news has not multiplied by 16 times..and even if it did, that would be pointless...no one wacthes CNN or fox or any outlet 16 hours straight. Instead there are programmes that offer information...business news, personal finance news, health....and even talk shows. Talk shows are attractive to network programmers, not because they attract huge audiences, they don't. They are attractive because the ratio of production costs to audience is very good. In other words you can attract less audience than prime time, earn less revenue from ad sales but still make the same profit. Real news is expensive. And real news on non all news networks are loss leaders...they don't make money. Even when they cover celebrity fluff. Talk shows are attractive to network programmers, not because they attract huge audiences, they don't. They are attractive because the ratio of production costs to audience is very good. I dont have any problem with the entertainment based content, what bugs me is the blurring of the lines between the two. Fox for example gets a bad rap, but if you look at their basic news casts they are pretty normal... the problem is they lead into shows like Glenn Beck, where you have some pschyco spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theory and it still says "Fox NEWS" in the corner. And even the news portion of the network is suspect, especially the political portion of it, because theyre an unabashed extension of one party... an active donor and they dont even try to deny it. And then you claim they havent lost their objectivity. Because of this various studies have shown that viewers have a complete disconnect with reality in a number of different areas. These networks dont educate people they do the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 Yes but you are missing the point. McDonalds doesn't advertise on every channel every hour. You have to look elsewhere for ad revenue and sometimes that revenue is found in audiences that want economic forecasting...believe me, market research teams have already figured that out and market research teams don't determine the content (producers do that), but they do see if there is a market for it, which is quite different. No one want to spend money on producing a show that no one will watch. The CBC excepting... No one want to spend money on producing a show that no one will watch. The CBC excepting... Exactly. Thats why your content has to be mostly news "porn". Loudmouth pundits, all day editorializing, celebrity fluff, super model anchors with fake tits, etc. No nonsense journalism is pretty boring to watch. A guy like Walter Cronkite wouldnt have even been able to get a job in the infotainment industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 12, 2011 Report Share Posted January 12, 2011 I dont have any problem with the entertainment based content, what bugs me is the blurring of the lines between the two. Fox for example gets a bad rap, but if you look at their basic news casts they are pretty normal... the problem is they lead into shows like Glenn Beck, where you have some pschyco spouting all kinds of wild conspiracy theory and it still says "Fox NEWS" in the corner. And even the news portion of the network is suspect, especially the political portion of it, because theyre an unabashed extension of one party... an active donor and they dont even try to deny it. And then you claim they havent lost their objectivity. Because of this various studies have shown that viewers have a complete disconnect with reality in a number of different areas. These networks dont educate people they do the opposite. Like I said before, I'm unqualified to talk about Fox. I have never seen a Fox newscast, our local Fox affliate doesn't carry news except on weekends....and weekends the kids get to watch Wizards of Waverly Place... But while I have never said squat about Fox, I do claim they are not even a small % of the media universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 Free to hate In many democracies, including Canada, ranters like O'Reilly would probably at least be looked at by legal authorities or human rights commissions. So might some of his colleagues. That's because most other democracies have anti-incitement or hate speech laws. They don't work very well, and free speech advocates despise them. But they are on the books and they serve as an acknowledgement that words have consequences. Israel, for example, embarked on a series of hate speech investigations after then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down by a right-wing fanatic in 1995. Many European nations forbid hateful rhetoric that appears to target certain classes of individuals. So does Canada. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/11/f-vp-macdonald.html#ixzz1AuufOsCz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 No one in America, not even the mentally unbalanced, is shielded by government from hateful invective. In this country, Bill O'Reilly gets to call Kathleen Sebelius pro-murder and left-wingers get to call George W. Bush a war criminal. Limbaugh gets to call liberals sick and twisted, and they get to call him a Nazi. The right gets to wave around guns and threaten the government with armed rebellion and fundamental Christians from Topeka, Kansas, get to picket funerals of fallen soldiers, hoisting placards thanking God for their deaths. (Somehow, that church's congregation has managed to link U.S. soldiers dying with America's tolerance of homosexuality.) Actually, that church's members intend to picket the funeral of the nine-year-old girl killed by the maniac who shot down Gabrielle Giffords. This country's much criticized discourse is more than uncivil. It's nasty, bigoted, ugly, extreme and full of incitement. And free. For better or worse, it's free. Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/01/11/f-vp-macdonald.html#ixzz1AuvClBrK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 13, 2011 Report Share Posted January 13, 2011 (edited) As a % of their schedule, how much celebrity fluff do you think CNN airs? http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/ From my experience, about 20%. Which is still to high for a news organization. PLaying pop songs before and after some commercial breaks, in the early morning and late evening there seems to be more celebrity fluff than during the day. The fluff sells, so this is why they do it. It's for profit and nothing else. Even online you have this .. http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/ .... fluff. Right now on their website out of the 9 vids you can check out, 3 of them are what you call celebrity fluff. Oprah, Conan, and the Green Hornet. Clebrity fluff + entertainment fluff = about 20%. Edited January 13, 2011 by GostHacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Free to hate In many democracies, including Canada, ranters like O'Reilly would probably at least be looked at by legal authorities or human rights commissions. So might some of his colleagues. Most definitely. So would Marilyn Manson, and Eminem. Same goes for the makers of the movie about assassinating George W Bush. Oh, and the makers of Grand Theft Auto. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 It is far worse than that. There is one station with one owner that has a virtual monopoly on the ravings of nutters, conspiracy freaks and assorted windbags. There is no evidence that the shooter listened to talk radio.. There doesn't have to be. The themes that are hammered on day after day on the radio provide the ideological underpinnings for the conspiracy theorists that he was getting his crazy ideas about government. .. indeed, talk radio my have been too rational for him.. Too rational? Like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. .. there is lots of evidence he was an avid Youtube viewer. And Youtube has a virtual monopoly on that crap. Nice try! But until net neutrality is gobbled up by the same media conglomerates that own TV and radio, the web is the media that has any semblance of democracy. If you want to watch crazy rightwing crackpots like Alex Jones or David Duke, they have their own channels. When it comes to radio, the owners of the stations have full control over what kind of content they will allow on them -- and the concentration of ownership that's allowed a few media conglomerates to bombard us with their messages, should be the real issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 There doesn't have to be. The themes that are hammered on day after day on the radio provide the ideological underpinnings for the conspiracy theorists that he was getting his crazy ideas about government. .. Too rational? Like Glenn Beck or Michael Savage. .. Nice try! But until net neutrality is gobbled up by the same media conglomerates that own TV and radio, the web is the media that has any semblance of democracy. If you want to watch crazy rightwing crackpots like Alex Jones or David Duke, they have their own channels. When it comes to radio, the owners of the stations have full control over what kind of content they will allow on them -- and the concentration of ownership that's allowed a few media conglomerates to bombard us with their messages, should be the real issue. Unitl there is a shred of evidence he listened to any of them....who gives a phock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Unitl there is a shred of evidence he listened to any of them....who gives a phock? Did I miss something! Was a Republican shot by a gunman? No; seems odd that if he was just an apolitical crazy as the right is desperately trying to spin lately, that he would target one of the few Democratic House Members in his state. One that had received previous death threats, along with vandalism of her office, just like the other Democrat from Arizona - Raul Grijalva. There have been other killers who have been inspired by the big right wing media loons; so I don't really give a shit if there is a trail of breadcrumbs leading from one of them to this new mass murderer; Sheriff Dupnik's condemnation of them for the way they have poisoned the public discourse, is still justified. Sheriff Dupnik certainly doesn't owe Limbaugh, Beck, or O'Reilly any apologies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 Most definitely. So would Marilyn Manson, and Eminem. Same goes for the makers of the movie about assassinating George W Bush. Oh, and the makers of Grand Theft Auto. Marylin Manson is pretty good. Got some of his music, read his autobiography which was really good. Eminem is still showing he has lyrical talent. And I loooove GTA4 in free roam mode with a bunch of friends. Ever see 20 people shooting their guns from a moving transit bus? No? It's quite hilarious. Until I gun them all down from the chopper, then it's a freakin gut busting riot!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfezziwig Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 This was politics at its worse, for the Democrats and Left leaning media to use this as political ammunition was disgusting. Do we really need government to censor what people say because they know what's best for use to hear better than ourselves? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 14, 2011 Report Share Posted January 14, 2011 This was politics at its worse, for the Democrats and Left leaning media to use this as political ammunition was disgusting. Do we really need government to censor what people say because they know what's best for use to hear better than ourselves? No one said censorship...the call is for those with microphones to use them in a responsible manner. And the debate over civility on the air avoids the most crucial issue -- concentration of ownership of the media by a small number of corporations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.