News stations. Are there any

[JonDouglas]

Similar tomrhat game telephone we played as kids where you whispered a message to one person who whispered it to another and by the end person, it became a whacked, overly dramatized version of what the actual message was.

You know, I was trying to think of the name "Telephone" and you nailed it. That game was very instructional to those who gave it some thought and took the lesson seriously. It would seem most have forgotten the extent to which it applies in what we read and see as news.

 

[Keesha]

You know, I was trying to think of the name "Telephone" and you nailed it. That game was very instructional to those who gave it some thought and took the lesson seriously. It would seem most have forgotten the extent to which it applies in what we read and see as news.

Yes. Basic news has become much like basic gossip. lol

 

[Chet]

Our local news inserts national news almost every day in their broadcasts. I'm not there for national. One of our local stations also has the ABC logo tucked in with theirs. I think there is some kind of incestuous relationship going on there.

 

[HoneyNut]

Fair news stations anymore? Like Walter Cronkite who just reported the news?

I think there are certainly several news sources that are 'balanced'. And there is also VoteSmart which is I guess would be called bi-partisan.
I used to be a member of a tiny YouTube news show that did things like split screen one half showing video of actual event and other screen showing politician saying what happened (totally different!). But they became bigger and more polarized so I quit being a member.

Walter Cronkite reported during the time of the fairness act, I found this info on wikipedia:

"
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

"

 

[JonDouglas]

I think there are certainly several news sources that are 'balanced'. And there is also VoteSmart which is I guess would be called bi-partisan.
I used to be a member of a tiny YouTube news show that did things like split screen one half showing video of actual event and other screen showing politician saying what happened (totally different!). But they became bigger and more polarized so I quit being a member.

Walter Cronkite reported during the time of the fairness act, I found this info on wikipedia:

"
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

"

Folks might want to read David Halberstam's 1979 book The Powers That Be, about Cronkite and his impact on the media. Another related read about the media might be In Getting it Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism, by W. Joseph Campbell. It is always good to remember that media people tend to have their own beliefs and agenda, which influence their communications to some greater or lesser degree.

 

[Nathan]

The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

Now this is perhaps the most relevant post in this thread, and speaks volumes in explaining the decline in news reporting quality, and the rise of slanted media since those days.

 

[Kathleen’s Place]

I think there are certainly several news sources that are 'balanced'. And there is also VoteSmart which is I guess would be called bi-partisan.
I used to be a member of a tiny YouTube news show that did things like split screen one half showing video of actual event and other screen showing politician saying what happened (totally different!). But they became bigger and more polarized so I quit being a member.

Walter Cronkite reported during the time of the fairness act, I found this info on wikipedia:

"
The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]

The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]

"

Hmmmm....interesting! Wish they could/WOULD bring it back!!!!

 

[Don M.]

I think there are certainly several news sources that are 'balanced'. And there is also VoteSmart which is I guess would be called bi-partisan.

There you go.....VoteSmart and Problica are two internet news sources that are well worth visiting. They keep track of how our politicians are conducting business, and voting, and bring out a lot of National News that few, if any, of the TV networks ever bother to inform us about.

 

[Kathleen’s Place]

There you go.....VoteSmart and Problica are two internet news sources that are well worth visiting. They keep track of how our politicians are conducting business, and voting, and bring out a lot of National News that few, if any, of the TV networks ever bother to inform us about.

I will have to check them out. Never heard of either one. Thanks to you and Jon

 

[Don M.]

I will have to check them out. Never heard of either one. Thanks to you and Jon

I forgot to mention a good Third source that I like to visit....OpenSecrets.org. This site tracks the money that continually flows to our politicians, and when coupled with the info on the other 2 sites I mentioned, gives a pretty good picture of how our government Really operates, and Who really matters to those in power.

 

[doat]

No news stations the way many of us remember. When they came out with 24-hour news that end news reporting as we knew it. There was only so much news to report but due to the abundance of air time the stations stared filling it with social talk, discussions and the real killer of news, OPINIONS.

I want the news in a time frame of twenty minutes to a half hour. That’s it no more and please make sure that just the facts reported no opinions.

 

[DaveA]

Sadly, even if no opinions are offered, the inclusion or exclusion of news serves the same person.

For an example, in politics, candidate A is accused of accepting illegal contributions from some source. This is glibly reported with as much detail as possible - -on a station favoring candidate B, but no opinions are offered.

A few days later, the same problem surfaces with candidate B, but the same station neglects to include this in the days reporting .

And let's not even get into "fake news" which is a relatively new term that now describes ANYTHING POLITICAL that I don't approve of or want to hear.