^^ The problem is a lot of times (I can't say I watch CNN with any regularity as I mostly get news from postings here and other sites), the things these shows discuss in themselves are untrue. For example, the whole topic of Obama's birth certificate, or claiming, he is a Muslim (like it should make a difference) or has "socialist agenda's" (like it's a bad thing to want health care for everyone) or whatever, and then discussing those things like they are even up for debate. The President is American, it's not up for debate. The President is not a Muslim, not that it should really matter, but to claim otherwise and then debate about the degree to which is Muslimness goes is just filling people with false information. If I do happen to flip to these channels I regularly see stuff like this spewed across their tickers while the hosts discuss Kim Kardashian's comments on some irrelevant matter, or her baby bump or whatever. That is where I take issue with the current news channels. That stuff is not news and takes away from actual world events. They discuss those things because thats what their audience is interested in. I while average housewife in the states may be more interested in what Kardashian has going on than chimcal bombs in Syria (God help us), that does not make it news worthy. She can switch over to ET for that.
They are just as biased as any real news organization in the States. Not sure how they are doing things any better.
But this is exaclty the point. These comedians don't claim to be unbiased or to be reporting the news. And to except ANY bias in the news IMO is completely wrong. There should be no bias when delivering the news. It should be the facts, and that's it. And if they want to have shows discussing facts that's fine, and often times they do. But often times they seem to feel the need to fill airspace with dingbats spewing their own personal biases like it's the truth. There's no space for that under the heading of "News" in my opinion.
^^ The problem is a lot of times (I can't say I watch CNN with any regularity as I mostly get news from postings here and other sites), the things these shows discuss in themselves are untrue. For example, the whole topic of Obama's birth certificate, or claiming, he is a Muslim (like it should make a difference) or has "socialist agenda's" (like it's a bad thing to want health care for everyone) or whatever, and then discussing those things like they are even up for debate. The President is American, it's not up for debate. The President is not a Muslim, not that it should really matter, but to claim otherwise and then debate about the degree to which is Muslimness goes is just filling people with false information. If I do happen to flip to these channels I regularly see stuff like this spewed across their tickers while the hosts discuss Kim Kardashian's comments on some irrelevant matter, or her baby bump or whatever. That is where I take issue with the current news channels. That stuff is not news and takes away from actual world events. They discuss those things because thats what their audience is interested in. I while average housewife in the states may be more interested in what Kardashian has going on than chimcal bombs in Syria (God help us), that does not make it news worthy. She can switch over to ET for that.
I'm not sure what debate this was from, nor what show or network it was on, but I can assure it was not the show I'm discussing as Crossfire was not on the air when birther thing came about. I'm not here to say every political debate on every channel is worthwhile and should be seen and heard, but I am arguing that their are effective, interesting and informative political debates being held on news television and I think Crossfire continues to be one of the programs doing so.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
I know that's what your buddy Jon said, but let's hear you back it up because that is a pile of BS as far as I'm concerned. One show takes serious political topics of the day, brings in Senators and Congressmen to discuss them with knowledgeable hosts who have background in current events and foreign affairs. The other show makes stupid little jokes (basically all pointed at the Republican party, I'm no fan of the Repub's but Stewart, even in his "jokes" always has a hardcore liberal bias) with the host trying to seem like everyone else (usually right wingers) are silly and wrong while he is all knowing.
As far "liberal" and "republican" talking points and "yelling", have you watched any show, on any news network (no, Colbert and Jon Stewart don't count) out the States lately? I'll guess the answer is no because that is what you'll see on every single political show that brings a panel in. You seem not to realize it, but over the past 10-15 years that is what the US politic system has devolved into - two sides yelling at each other, each side thinking they're right and not willing to compromise.
Crossfire is, and was, a real news show, despite Jon Stewart's opinion. You and he may not like the content, may not like the hosts or even the guests, but it certainly is a news show, always was and through the first 4 episodes of this new iteration, continues to be.
At the time, well before the time really, I had CNN. I watched CNBC too. I was a total news junkie, more than I am now. I gradually formed those opinions on my own, before I got into The Daily Show.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Panels are not news. News is reporting, without opinion or spin, what has happened. Not discussing it, if you can even call a lot of those shows, real discussion.
True every reporter or journalist will have their own voice and color the report a little. Put it in context as they see it. Rather did this, Koppel did this, even Cronkite and Murrow did it. It's unavoidable. But they still reported facts and did actual journalism work. They looked for truth before having an opinion on it, and brought you the story. Did their best to have you come to a conclusion on your own, not convince you of a side.
These panel programs were developed primarily for ratings. Another thing real news should not be concerned with. And they exist mostly of experts who only want to convince you of their point of view. Not educate you.
Lastly, a lot of the people on these panels rank very low on fact checking websites. And that's only natural when you get off the story or the reported news. Once you start talking on the issue, even if you have the best of intentions, bias increases, and so does conjecture.
I'm not sure what debate this was from, nor what show or network it was on, but I can assure it was not the show I'm discussing as Crossfire was not on the air when birther thing came about. I'm not here to say every political debate on every channel is worthwhile and should be seen and heard, but I am arguing that their are effective, interesting and informative political debates being held on news television and I think Crossfire continues to be one of the programs doing so.
I believe he is just using an example about the panel/debate process. He did say, 'for example'.
But this is exaclty the point. These comedians don't claim to be unbiased or to be reporting the news. And to except ANY bias in the news IMO is completely wrong. There should be no bias when delivering the news. It should be the facts, and that's it. And if they want to have shows discussing facts that's fine, and often times they do. But often times they seem to feel the need to fill airspace with dingbats spewing their own personal biases like it's the truth. There's no space for that under the heading of "News" in my opinion.
OK, so the 5-10 24 news networks on the air should do nothing but have live coverage from their newsroom 24/7? Have you ever sat down and watched the newsroom on CNN or MSNBC (or any other channel for that matter)? Because after about 1-2 hours they've gone through all the stories they're currently reporting on and start over from the beginning.
You're saying a news network should not help the public interpret or understand the news or the goings on in their political system, simply continue to regurgitate everything that is being reported, 24/7/365? Yeah, I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and frankly find it rather naive.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
OK, so the 5-10 24 news networks on the air should do nothing but have live coverage from their newsroom 24/7? Have you ever sat down and watched the newsroom on CNN or MSNBC (or any other channel for that matter)? Because after about 1-2 hours they've gone through all the stories they're currently reporting on and start over from the beginning.
You're saying a news network should not help the public interpret or understand the news or the goings on in their political system, simply continue to regurgitate everything that is being reported, 24/7/365? Yeah, I strongly disagree with that sentiment, and frankly find it rather naive.
I understand they need to fill air time, but that is the birth of the problem really. When you need to fill airspace you're always going to end up with airheads that don't know what they're talking about, or people representing extremes based on misinformation. This is also a problem stemming from everyone's need to be "first" breaking a story. You end up with people spouting out things as facts based on no verification. There's a similar problem with 24 hr sports networks.
I don't know what type of system I would prefer, but I would like to see some sort of disclaimer beforehand stating "The opinions expressed in this segment are just that, opinions, and do not reflect...blah blah blah." Something along those lines. Again I have no problem with people on air discussing their viewpoints, as long as what they are discussing is actually based on factual information.
At the time, well before the time really, I had CNN. I watched CNBC too. I was a total news junkie, more than I am now. I gradually formed those opinions on my own, before I got into The Daily Show.
So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Panels are not news. News is reporting, without opinion or spin, what has happened. Not discussing it, if you can even call a lot of those shows, real discussion.
True every reporter or journalist will have their own voice and color the report a little. Put it in context as they see it. Rather did this, Koppel did this, even Cronkite and Murrow did it. It's unavoidable. But they still reported facts and did actual journalism work. They looked for truth before having an opinion on it, and brought you the story. Did their best to have you come to a conclusion on your own, not convince you of a side.
These panel programs were developed primarily for ratings. Another thing real news should not be concerned with. And they exist mostly of experts who only want to convince you of their point of view. Not educate you.
Lastly, a lot of the people on these panels rank very low on fact checking websites. And that's only natural when you get off the story or the reported news. Once you start talking on the issue, even if you have the best of intentions, bias increases, and so does conjecture.
Yes, but that is also why every single show every put on TV was developed, it's all about the ratings and it always has been, no matter if we're talking the evening news, Saturday morning cartoons or the Colbert show. Ratings, or lack thereof, are irrelevent in this discussion.
Anyways I think both sides have made their points here and we have really taken the poor OP's thread off on a tangent. If someone wants to start a new thread about the merits (or lack thereof) of Crossfire I will be sure to jump in.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Yes, but that is also why every single show every put on TV was developed, it's all about the ratings and it always has been, no matter if we're talking the evening news, Saturday morning cartoons or the Colbert show. Ratings, or lack thereof, are irrelevent in this discussion.
Anyways I think both sides have made their points here and we have really taken the poor OP's thread off on a tangent. If someone wants to start a new thread about the merits (or lack thereof) of Crossfire I will be sure to jump in.
The point is that news should not be subject to the same standards as regular TV. It's not regular TV. It's not supposed to be for entertainment. I could care less if the guy telling me the news was the ugliest guy with the most boring voice in the world. As long as he's actually telling me the news.
Somewhat off topic, but I often feel I'm the only one in the world that has a seroius hate on for Jon Stewart and his stupid show (Colbert is OK, nothing I watch on a regular basis though). To me the guy comes across as such a smarmy, holier than thou arsepick I simply cannot believe the sucess he has.
Hated him ever since he had the gall to accept an invitation onto a proper news show (Crossfire, the old version) to discuss his new book, took the invitation only to sh** all over the show and it's hosts saying basically that it was a joke and shouldn't be on the air.....but oh by the way check out my new book and my awesome TV show!! He's an egotistical, self-aggrandizing maroon and I will never watch/read or listen to anything he does again.
/rant
I don't hate Stewart, I hate his god awful team of correspondents. None of them are funny, and John Oliver and his fake british accent is the worst of the bunch.
Yes, but that is also why every single show every put on TV was developed, it's all about the ratings and it always has been, no matter if we're talking the evening news, Saturday morning cartoons or the Colbert show. Ratings, or lack thereof, are irrelevent in this discussion.
Anyways I think both sides have made their points here and we have really taken the poor OP's thread off on a tangent. If someone wants to start a new thread about the merits (or lack thereof) of Crossfire I will be sure to jump in.
Actually, the news was not developed for that. It was a public service put on the airwaves to inform. It has only become that way over time due to the nature of TV and moneymaking especially in the western world, and the advent of the 24 hour news networks.
And as a few people have argued in other threads, that the ones that have remain public, or taxpayer funded, have actually remained better organizations because ratings mean less to them.
I don't hate Stewart, I hate his god awful team of correspondents. None of them are funny, and John Oliver and his fake british accent is the worst of the bunch.
The current crop of correspondents is pretty bad (other than Rob Riggle who is amazing), but I'm not sure if this post is satire of satire *DMX* but John Oliver is like, super duper British.
The point is that news should not be subject to the same standards as regular TV. It's not regular TV. It's not supposed to be for entertainment. I could care less if the guy telling me the news was the ugliest guy with the most boring voice in the world. As long as he's actually telling me the news.
I said I was done but can't let this go; this will be my last one in this thread though.
Whether you think that is the way "it should be" or whether you think "its not regular TV" the same standards do apply. TV, like all businesses is all money, to get money it's all about advertising, advertising is all about ratings and ratings are all about which station draws the most viewers.
When you have 5-10 stations doing the news, with the news being the exact same for everyone, these stations have realized if you don't develop your program for ratings it will not be watched, advertisers either won’t advertise or pay pennies on the dollar to do so and eventually the network has to fold/show has to come off the air/the anchor needs to be canned/etc. This is a simple capitalistic reality that "the news" and news channels are as much as part of as the 7-11 down the road is.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
The current crop of correspondents is pretty bad (other than Rob Riggle who is amazing), but I'm not sure if this post is satire of satire *DMX* but John Oliver is like, super duper British.
Rob hasn't been on forever. He recently did a guest spot, but that's it.
And you're right, Oliver is British, not sure what Bert means, but he often says things for effect.
I thought he did a great job as host when Stewart was gone this summer.
The correspondents have their hit and misses. So does Stewart.
The funny thing is I actually think The Daily Show is overall a more consistent program than Colbert. It's just that the best pieces, the ones that really get the tears rolling sometimes, are on Colbert. On the other end of the argument, I find sometimes he's just TOO silly or his character doesn't work for the story.
I definitely get why most people prefer Colbert though.
Bert, if you weren't on The Daily Show in it's early years, you gotta look up Even Steven (Stephen sp?) on you tube or the like. Some great bits, and it's funny to see Colbert's character develop. Plus Colbert and Carell in the same skits, how can you go wrong?
I said I was done but can't let this go; this will be my last one in this thread though.
Whether you think that is the way "it should be" or whether you think "its not regular TV" the same standards do apply. TV, like all businesses is all money, to get money it's all about advertising, advertising is all about ratings and ratings are all about which station draws the most viewers.
When you have 5-10 stations doing the news, with the news being the exact same for everyone, these stations have realized if you don't develop your program for ratings it will not be watched, advertisers either won’t advertise or pay pennies on the dollar to do so and eventually the network has to fold/show has to come off the air/the anchor needs to be canned/etc. This is a simple capitalistic reality that "the news" and news channels are as much as part of as the 7-11 down the road is.
Well see this is my exact problem. I'm not talking about the way things are. They are what they are. I'm talking about ideally what it should be. As soon as something like news becomes subject to it's profits, you instantly give outside sources the opportunity to skew it how they please using the almighty dollar. And news should not be skewed. I understand this is how it is. I'm stating it needs to change.
I said I was done but can't let this go; this will be my last one in this thread though.
Whether you think that is the way "it should be" or whether you think "its not regular TV" the same standards do apply. TV, like all businesses is all money, to get money it's all about advertising, advertising is all about ratings and ratings are all about which station draws the most viewers.
When you have 5-10 stations doing the news, with the news being the exact same for everyone, these stations have realized if you don't develop your program for ratings it will not be watched, advertisers either won’t advertise or pay pennies on the dollar to do so and eventually the network has to fold/show has to come off the air/the anchor needs to be canned/etc. This is a simple capitalistic reality that "the news" and news channels are as much as part of as the 7-11 down the road is.
And this reinforces your argument of Crossfire and shows like it's ilk being good news programs how?
So it's capitalism rum amok? So what? Doesn't say much for your central, or first thesis that panel driven discussion shows aren't generally pure dross.
There are other ways. News didn't start off like this. And in some places, including Canada, still fares better than those giants. Maybe it makes less money, maybe it even costs a bit of money, but it informs better, and more importantly doesn't misinform as much.
Maybe you want to pick your news based on popularity or accessibility, but it's pretty easy nowadays to check facts on those talking heads. And these panel shows are consistently at the bottom of the barrel.
I would consider accuracy of information a far better metric to rate ones news than popularity.
And besides being largely incorrect in many of their statements and ideas, their forced and staged bickering was just pulling the country apart and reinforcing stereotypes. We all know the US is horribly divided right now, why add to that? Why be part of the problem?
And that's exactly what Stewart hit them with years ago. That's why CNN pulled it.
Think about it, if someone from a rival network or show can make you look so bad you pull your own show, there's got to be something to it.
The best thing is, even if you totally disagree with all of that, he still owned them at their own game. Debate. Cause he won. He won going away. He won with such a US Dream Team margin that they pulled the show! So they weren't even as good at that as they thought they were and had fooled their viewers into thinking they were.
Lastly, I'll just reiterate, I don't have a problem with these shows on their own. Sometimes they are entertaining and sometimes they are even informative. I just wish they would be advertised correctly. Some sort of disclaimer. I also wish they didn't seem to take such joy in driving a wedge into the country. That's good for no one. Except the sponsors I guess.
But this is exaclty the point. These comedians don't claim to be unbiased or to be reporting the news.
The problem is, many people seem to get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Sure, they are both comedians and Jon Stewart will quickly point this out anytime someone attempts to hold him accountable for his unbalanced show, but many people seem to regard the world that Stewart/Colbert depict as the truth.
The problem is, many people seem to get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Sure, they are both comedians and Jon Stewart will quickly point this out anytime someone attempts to hold him accountable for his unbalanced show, but many people seem to regard the world that Stewart/Colbert depict as the truth.
And that's on the hosts because? Do they a need a big disclaimer scrolling across the bottom of the screen reminding everyone they are watching Comedy Central and not MSNBC?
The problem is, many people seem to get their news from The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Sure, they are both comedians and Jon Stewart will quickly point this out anytime someone attempts to hold him accountable for his unbalanced show, but many people seem to regard the world that Stewart/Colbert depict as the truth.
This is true, but it's still better than the Limbaughs of the world who DO advertise their shows as news.
Even if you call the newsworthiness between the two spectrum's of shows as a wash, one advertises itself as entertainment, the others often don't.
