Where have all the good reporters--reporters such as Walter Cronkite--gone? He seemed so objective, so clear, so confident, so fair, especially when it came to reporting on politics. To this day, I have no idea if he was a Republican or Democrat or Independent, which I am sure he was.
I can't say the same for today's talking heads. They wear the candidate they are supporting on their sleeves. Even their smirks, laughs and comments give them away.
For years, those of us who were political reporters knew that we had to stop covering presidential races as horse races, only concerned with who was ahead and who had the most money. Today newscasts hire GOP and Democrat operatives who give their spin. One so-called CNN reporter has the electorial college votes already tabulated for this election.
I just don't want to watch TV political coverage any more. Am I too critical? Is the television medium really doing a good job? Is there a better way to cover politics?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
The networks might be the closest you'll get to unbiased coverage, but they aren't running "news" 24/7.
You have to mix and match for balanced coverage.
No, you are not being too critical, because the TV medium is NOT doing a good job. They deal in polling, sound bites and image bites that give no context.
I think Jon Stewart is the new Walter Cronkite. He's all those things you mentioned about Walter, only he does it with humor.
In my opinion, old fashioned newspaper reporting is the best way to cover politics. The personality of the writer doesn't get in the way like it does on TV.
You're right. They suck. That's why I read the paper instead.
Reporting has always been bias since the beginning that people had an opinion and someone wasn't regulating. The Media hasn't changed all too much, what has changed though is the attention span that people have these days. Everyone gets their 15 min story and thats it. A lot of people don't investigate for themselves and think for themselves anymore!
You're all right. Television is not doing a very good job of covering politics. TV "journalists" make little attempt to conceal their personal beliefs. The most popular news shows are the ones that are run as news magazines because, ultimately, television is entertainment. The goal of these reporters is to present the bare facts as engagingly as possible. There is no objectivity because there is almost no market for objectivity. Networks (and by extension, reporters) are arguably polarized into an us versus them mentality where everyone is forced to take sides. In an environment like that, where does neutrality fit in?
To the magnifying glass,
You mean people used to think for themselves? When was this?
You know what I do find ironic? Leadership classes. A lot of Christian universities offer those.
If you have to take a class to learn to lead then when you lead aren't you just following your teacher's instructions? Doesn't that pretty much disqualify you from being a leader?
Peter, that made me dizzy. But damn if it didn't make sense.
You make a good argument for why we still need newspapers. Print journalist can often be biases, but at least we don't have to see their smirks.
NPR seems to do a pretty good job reporting on politics.
Well at least MSNBC is pretending to get it right by effectively demoting Olbermann and Matthews. But will an "unbiased" anchor really make any difference in the preach-to-your-own-choir climate of cable news coverage? I think we all know the answer to that question.
"Pretending" is the right word alright. You remember MSNBC -- same network who sacked Phil Donahue's show because he was too "anti-Bush and anti-war." Now they're doing that to Olberman. He's just too anti-Bush, anti-McSame, etc. And we can't have that. Remember, MSNBC is owned by GE -- a company that has profited big-time from Iraq war.
Since eliminating bias doesn't seem to be possible, maybe it would be better if the networks just identified the side they're coming from (as if it isn't already obvious enough) instead of (word of the day) pretending to be "fair and balanced".
I don't know how well MSNBC is pretending. When Sarah Palin was announced, they ran a headline that said "how many houses will Palin add to the McCain ticket?"
I think it is the attempt of news organizations to try and compete for viewers who would rather see panty shots of their favorite celebs. Let's be honest, we're in the minority of people who care about politics enough to watch news channels dedicated to the subject...
Doesn't matter if we're in the minority if we're loud enough to be a part of the echo chamber, which is whre the agenda is shaped now.
To Peter, I guess I should rephrase that, because you are right "when did people think for themselves?" I guess what I mean is that people would read the newspaper more instead of getting a news blurb on their front page of yahoo and then assuming that that's the main news and only that. When poeple read the newspaper more, they have to manually sift through all the articles and then choose for themselves what they want to read and what they don't want to read.
I agree. I don't think reporters are doing a good job at all. I would like to see people look for other sources of political information rather than sitting in front of the TV watching sensationalized, biased news. I mean how hard is it to pick up a newspaper or get information from more neutral sources, such as the BBC? Apparently very ...
Look at Bill Moyers. He's become rather independent. I think that's almost the only home for the old school reporter. Lucky for him, he had enough clout and name recognition to stick around for a while. But his time will run out and then who will replace him?
I agree with Please Pass that Jon Stewart and the like are the future of truth. But that's sad because it's as though only cynical derogatory truth holds enough entertainment value to earn a time slot.
This is what happens when profit drives the media. Cheers ')'
I knew the media covered
presidential races as horse races in U.S.
Accually, I can see the media does so now.
But, This is my first time to see political campaign in U.S.
So, I can still interested in media's behaviors.
I am also interested in the media's ideologies. Each media seems to have some ideological bias. For example, CNN seems to support Obama. Right??
“I just don't want to watch TV political coverage anymore.”
Maybe we should all take this into consideration. I will admit that I am one who watches the TV political coverage, yet I must say how incredibly frustrating it is to see each broadcaster’s opinion and bias plastered on his or her forehead. I must ask- is there any impartiality left in reporting?
Walter Cronkite once said that “Objective journalism and an opinion column are about as similar as the Bible and Playboy magazine.” It seems that many of these reporters simply have their own broadcasted opinion columns, and people are actually taking their words at face value. This is an embarrassment to the field of journalism…
No, I don’t think you are being too critical. Maybe it is time that we turn the TVs off every now and then. We could do our own research on the candidates, think for ourselves just a little bit, and then maybe, just maybe, we might be able to come up with our own thoughts and conclusions instead of just the regurgitated, one-sided crap that seems to pervade our airwaves.
Post a Comment