# Why I don't watch television news



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I rarely watch what passes for news broadcasts on television. This morning, however, I had occasion to have CNN on for a few minutes. I was appalled. First, they had Sen. Bernie Sanders on to explain why he planned to boycott the Israeli prime minister's scheduled address to a joint session of Congress. The talking head asked the senator whether he would change his stance if the prime minister addressed the joint session behind closed doors. The senator, most patiently I thought, explained that foreign heads of state do not address Congress in private. I would have asked the idiot for proof that he graduated from high school. Then it was on to the death of an ISIS hostage, which was presented as this-just-in breaking news. Not once in at least five minutes did the talking heads say how she had died. Hmm, I thought. Perhaps CNN has adopted a policy of not publicizing beheadings or burnings. Nope. I had to go to the NYT to find, in the first paragraph or two, that ISIS had said a couple days earlier that she was the victim of an airstrike. Whether that is true or not, I don't know, but it was surely pertinent information that should have been included instead of having uninformed people, such as myself, assume the worst.

How on God's green earth can we expect the electorate to be informed and educated with "stuff" like this on the airwaves? And this was only 15 minutes or so of watching. Lord knows what happens the rest of the time.

I have always been a huge fan of the written word and newspapers, and this morning's experience only reinforced my belief. Anyone who deems themselves informed because they watch news on television is delusional.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I rarely watch what passes for news broadcasts on television. This morning, however, I had occasion to have CNN on for a few minutes. I was appalled. First, they had Sen. Bernie Sanders on to explain why he planned to boycott the Israeli prime minister's scheduled address to a joint session of Congress. The talking head asked the senator whether he would change his stance if the prime minister addressed the joint session behind closed doors. The senator, most patiently I thought, explained that foreign heads of state do not address Congress in private. I would have asked the idiot for proof that he graduated from high school.


For clarity; the reporter should have asked Sen. Bernie Sanders if he graduated from HS??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> For clarity; the reporter should have asked Sen. Bernie Sanders if he graduated from HS??


I think my meaning was clear.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I think the question should be why is anyone asking Bernie Sanders about anything?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I think the question should be why is anyone asking Bernie Sanders about anything?


So, what did you think, is it Sanders or the reporter who needs to go back to HS??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> I think the question should be why is anyone asking Bernie Sanders about anything?


No, that's not the question. Sheesh. Why is it that it can be so difficult to make a point about something around here? And how much of what you know--and you, too, wouldashoulda--about Mr. Sanders came from television? I don't know much about him at all save that he has enough sense to scorn both parties.

But just so we're clear: This isn't about Bernie Sanders. Why is that you want to make it about Bernie Sanders?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Maybe you can find a link to the CNN interview then we can decide if their presentation was more or less clear than your written account of it??


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Maybe you can find a link to the CNN interview then we can decide if their presentation was more or less clear than your written account of it??


It is an accurate account. Trust me. If you believe otherwise, you are free to hunt for the clip yourself.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Well, we know why Senator BS (heh, heh, BS) would not entertain a behind closed door session. 

Was his explanation of his boycott any less comical and lame??


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I can see why most congressmen and senators don't liked closed door sessions. There are no cameras and no audience and hence, no cause for grand standing.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I think the question should be why is anyone asking Bernie Sanders about anything?


Sanders rocks. Ask him about banking. Too bad he's too left for the US public.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

TV news in the US are deplorable. Deplorable. The best one can do is watch Al Jazeera. I hate to say it, but it's true. They at least do real journalism at least most of the time and give extensive coverage to substantive matters. If you watch a lot of Al Jazeera, you're sure to learn something. If you watch a lot of the domestic TV news channels, you'll learn nothing more than perhaps the latest concerning the Kardashians.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> TV news in the US are deplorable. Deplorable. The best one can do is watch Al Jazeera. I hate to say it, but it's true. They at least do real journalism at least most of the time and give extensive coverage to substantive matters. If you watch a lot of Al Jazeera, you're sure to learn something. If you watch a lot of the domestic TV news channels, you'll learn nothing more than perhaps the latest concerning the Kardashians.


I suspect that this is true, but Al Jazeera is, I'm told, available only to a very small portion of cable subscribers, and then you have to get a premium package. I suspect that this is by design.

And thanks for being on point.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I can see why most congressmen and senators don't liked closed door sessions. There are no cameras and no audience and hence, no cause for grand standing.


Well, that, and foreign heads of state do not address Congress in private as it's positively forbidden!!


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I have always been a huge fan of the written word and newspapers, and this morning's experience only reinforced my belief. Anyone who deems themselves informed because they watch news on television is delusional.


Agreed and I'd add that one needs to read from a variety of sources and - especially today - both the left- and right-leaning sources to try to get the full story.

The TV news is too glib, too bias and too unprofessional today for it to serve as anything other than a quick snapshot of things that you make a mental note of to read about later.

Also, I find I do learn from both the left's and right's editorials as they sometimes include new news / details / facts about a story or news not mentioned in the "news" section of the paper.

It is work to try to get the (as close as possible) objective story so that you can form your own opinion.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Agreed and I'd add that one needs to read from a variety of sources and - especially today - both the left- and right-leaning sources to try to get the full story.
> 
> The TV news is too glib, too bias and too unprofessional today for it to serve as anything other than a quick snapshot of things that you make a mental note of to read about later.
> 
> ...


Totally agree.

"Objective" journalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Nothing, of course, can be truly objective, but I think that NYT does about as good a job as can be expected. I also like that they have a true ombudsman to help keep them honest, as well as the best commenting function I've seen, which can't be cheap, given that every comment is read before it appears to weed out the nutballs. It's worth whatever they're paying. The comments often come from people who are informative and who help keep the paper honest by calling BS when they see it.

Also like the WSJ, although I don't read it as often as I should (if it were possible to get just a digital subscription, I'd do it in a second). The New Yorker, while not a true newspaper, publishes some pretty good stuff, much of it unabashedly liberal. That's OK, I think, because as you point out, there's lots out there from the right to balance it out, but you have to seek it yourself instead of having it spoon fed.

Way back when, when we had a truly partisan press with political parties putting out publications, I'm guessing that it was possible to get a holistic view by reading all sides, but that was in the 19th century, so I can't say for sure. I think that we have that opportunity more than ever today, but you have to want to be educated to get educated. It's not a passive endeavor.

Not all TV is bad. I like Frontline very much. 60 Minutes, when they're on their game, can also be very good. I do watch local television news (at least the first few minutes) because I have to, but it's terrible, and that holds true for any local television news I've seen in any city. Also sad is the demise of local newspapers. Unless you live in a really big city (and even then) or are extraordinarily lucky (I'm thinking of the Belleville News Democrat, pound for pound the best newspaper in America), local newspapers these days are close to worthless, cash cows for corporate chains that won't do what it takes to deliver good journalism. Instead, they pay reporters next to nothing to be stenographers at public meetings or chase fire alarms while kow-towing to advertisers. It didn't used to be that way, or at least, it didn't used to be that way to the extent that it is now.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> "Objective" journalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Nothing, of course, can be truly objective, but I think that NYT does about as good a job as can be expected. I also like that they have a true ombudsman to help keep them honest, as well as the best commenting function I've seen, which can't be cheap, given that every comment is read before it appears to weed out the nutballs. It's worth whatever they're paying. The comments often come from people who are informative and who help keep the paper honest by calling BS when they see it.
> 
> ...


Maybe I misunderstood, but I have a just-digital WSJ subscription - no physical paper involved. I enjoyed your broader comments.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

TV news places the premium on fast pace and excitement. Some years ago, same year I think, there were tons of reports on burnings of black churches, and on shark attacks. Somebody finally compared apples-to-apples, and found that there was no increase in black church burnings, no change in the ratio of black-to-white church burnings, and that shark attacks for that year were comparatively low.

Real numbers being dull and tedious, however, this got much less airplay. And a lot of "the public" really doesn't seem to give a damn about verified facts. 


Cable TV "news" was supposed to fix that, with enough time to cover some story more fully, and put things into context. What I see is some poor schmuck trying to do so, and the host blasting in with "hard hitting" (off point) questions trying create as much heat and confusion as possible. Either that, or endless speculation on "maybes" when a story is a couple of hours old, and very little is known.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> Maybe I misunderstood, but I have a just-digital WSJ subscription - no physical paper involved. I enjoyed your broader comments.


Really? I had a WSJ subscription awhile back and canceled after the introductory rate ended. I know I could look this up myself, but, if you don't mind saying, what's the monthly rate? I pay $15/month for the NYT and consider it a bargain.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The funny thing about TV news is that they're often reporting on what was in the papers that morning. 

The demise of the newspaper is greatly exaggerated. Most big stories, at least those that matter, are broken and reported on in newspapers.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Since we're on the subject:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Credibility is the only thing they have to sell. Their top salesman has lost all credibility. And yet they continue to sell. There really must be suckers born every minute.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*Al Jazeera available on-line*

It is not necessary to subscribe to a cable service to get access to Al Jazeera. One can read an on-line version, <https://america.aljazeera.com/?utm_source=aje&utm_medium=redirect>, Al Jazeera English, which I began to do after comparing CNN, BBC, and Al Jazeera broadcasts while on a trip which included a layover in Katmandu. AJ's coverage was markedly superior to that of the other two services.

AJE's coverage of US politics and serious news is excellent, and their reporting of foreign news, particularly as it relates to the Middle East, is thorough and appears to be aimed at an American audience.

As others have noted, there are some good US sources of news, including the NYT, and the New Yorker, to name two to which I subscribe. I never, well, hardly ever, watch television, but the quality of TV news was awful when I watched it regularly some years ago, and seems to have gotten worse since then. NPR could charitably be characterized as housebroken.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Really? I had a WSJ subscription awhile back and canceled after the introductory rate ended. I know I could look this up myself, but, if you don't mind saying, what's the monthly rate? I pay $15/month for the NYT and consider it a bargain.


I pay $23 a month for the WSJ (although it is an annual fee which feels like a lot for a moment when it hits) which, like your NYT subscription (which I also have), I consider a fantastic bargain for all that I get.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> Since we're on the subject:
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/11/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
> 
> Credibility is the only thing they have to sell. Their top salesman has lost all credibility. And yet they continue to sell. There really must be suckers born every minute.


Our culture doesn't care anymore. This should end his career and be an incredible hit to NBC News - reflected in a loss of viewership and advertisers - but I doubt that will happen. Our culture just doesn't care they way I know my grandmother and father's would have.

From being taught the value of a handshake, how your word is your bond and if you break that no one will trust you again, et al., I was raised in a culture that put a much heavier emphasis on integrity and honesty. Today, our culture pays lip service to that, but really cares about excitement, youth, flash, etc.

Are there examples of immorality from my parents' and grandparents' era - yes, absolutely, but on a continuum, there was a greater emphasis on integrity and honesty then than now.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)




----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


>


Thanks for reminding me of that brilliant series. Even if Chris Morris *is* mad.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_Today#mediaviewer/File:Fact_x_importance_equals_ne.jpg


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Fading Fast said:


> I pay $23 a month for the WSJ (although it is an annual fee which feels like a lot for a moment when it hits) which, like your NYT subscription (which I also have), I consider a fantastic bargain for all that I get.


I'll have to do that, then. Unfortunate that they don't allow monthly payments. I suspect they'd get a lot more subscriptions. They were pretty nice, though, when my wife called and asked if they would allow an extended discounted subscription rate for my dad. We got him a four or six month (can't recall at the moment) subscription for Christmas a couple years ago and he liked it so much that we bit the bullet and kept it going. This year, when Mrs. 32 explained that it was a gift situation, they let us have the low rate for the entire year. Pretty cool.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I'll have to do that, then. Unfortunate that they don't allow monthly payments. I suspect they'd get a lot more subscriptions. They were pretty nice, though, when my wife called and asked if they would allow an extended discounted subscription rate for my dad. We got him a four or six month (can't recall at the moment) subscription for Christmas a couple years ago and he liked it so much that we bit the bullet and kept it going. This year, when Mrs. 32 explained that it was a gift situation, they let us have the low rate for the entire year. Pretty cool.


About ten or more years ago, when new owners came in, the WSJ really upped its game. They always covered the business and finance world well, and did a decent job on the larger news, but with the new ownership, they really became a full newspaper covering all the news.

I'm glad you were able to negotiate some better rates for your Dad. I've tried, and can't get them to budge for me - but in truth - it is well worth the price (just a big number in one annual shot - you are spot on, monthly rates would help them).

One more thought - when the WSJ first went on-line (back in the '90s, I think), they immediately charged a subscription which was highly unusual at the time. The Editor at the time wrote a letter to the subscribers saying - I'm paraphrasing from memory - that even though it was in vogue to not charge for newspapers on-line that the WSJ philosophy was that it offered unique value that its customers recognize and will gladly pay a fair price for. I remember being impressed by this attitude at the time and, kudos to the WSJ, other papers have been coming around to its way of thinking.

That said, the on-line subscription then was either $69 or $99 a year - which lasted for initial subscribers like me (they kept me at that rate even when it was higher for new subscribers for years) until a few years ago.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> The funny thing about TV news is that they're often reporting on what was in the papers that morning.
> 
> The demise of the newspaper is greatly exaggerated. Most big stories, at least those that matter, are broken and reported on in newspapers.


It is true that electronic media steals from print--it's called rip-and-read. But the demise is not exaggerated, I'm afraid. For practically forever, newspapers were cash cows. It didn't matter what you did or printed, you were going to make money. Fortunately, most publishers recognized that they had some sort of public duty and so ran their businesses largely as if they had a civic responsibility (with some huge exceptions, of course--there were still plenty of sacred cows at some shops when it came to printing stuff about the publisher's friends/business associates). Until the late 1990s, newspapers were awash in cash. Twenty, even 40 percent, returns were the norm, which helps explain why big corporations, Gannett being the best (worst) example, started snapping up newspapers and establishing chains that resulted in a certain homogenization of the news. Reporters and editors everywhere went to big conferences/junkets disguised as journalism conferences. Reporters could get away with writing virtually nothing--one byline a week or even less wasn't unusual, and there was plenty of staff to take up the slack. Then came the Internet, and newspapers that had never had to operate like businesses simply couldn't adjust. They gave away content online, for example, when they should have been improving the product, dramatically in most cases, and charging for it. Meanwhile, Wall Street kept demanding those 20 and 40 percent margins, and newspapers did whatever they could to deliver, to the detriment of their long-term health. It became a vicious cycle, with product detriorating to meet quarterly profit goals, and so the goals became even more difficult to achieve because

Until a few years ago, I thought that this all was simply a course correction. After all, newspapers were bloated--they could lose 20 percent or even more of newsroom staff with no ill effect. There was that much dead wood. But we're past cutting dead wood now, and still cutting. Excellent journalists are no longer working as journalists--top reporters have been laid off because they made too much money, even though they earned every penny. Kow towing to advertisers has reached an all-time high. While local governments go uncovered, or barely covered, the Indianapolis Star has established--I kid you not--a beverage beat, assigning a reporter to write about coffee, soft drinks, wine, etc. The newspaper in Cleveland has a reporter assigned to cover Lebron James full-time.

This will ultimately self correct. There is, after all, no money to be made in remaining ignorant, and so there will always be a market for what newspapers have traditionally provided. But the days of 20 and 40 percent margins are over, even if Wall Street hasn't entirely accepted that fact. I think that newspapers will, eventually, become less centralized and again become community-based businesses owned and run by local folks who are content with returns of 10 percent or so, and that will be a good thing. In the meantime, it is difficult to watch what is happening.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> ... no money to be made in remaining ignorant,


You have ignored your own evidence to the contrary!!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> You have ignored your own evidence to the contrary!!


Please re-read my post. I clearly stated that there is a market for quality journalism because people who are informed on current events are in a better position economically than people who are ignorant. I cannot decipher the basis for your remark.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Please re-read my post. I clearly stated that there is a market for quality journalism because people who are informed on current events are in a better position economically than people who are ignorant. I cannot decipher the basis for your remark.


I was going for "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."


----------

