What news shows do you watch?

[FindersKeepers]

I haven't watched television news for a long time. I get my news on the net by going to Google News and then clicking on the stories I like. Sometimes that takes me to a CNN story, a FOX story, CBS, MSNBC, etc. I read a wide variety--and, I'd rather read than watch the videos.

After all work, chores, daily activities are done, I will sometimes turn on the TV and watch something on Hulu, Netflix, or another of the many channels our son subscribes us to. My favorite is Off-Grid Building on Hulu right now.

[Peter1469]

Interesting compare and contrast Polly- Tucker and Maddow.

I don't really watch news any more. Get it on the net. I cut the cable over a year ago. I got a Ruko maybe 3 months ago, and a second one recently. So now, sometimes I will turn on OAN or NewsMax- the free versions which are select commentary shows, not news, and then for only 30 minutes or so.

[hanger4]

I watch our local news in the morning and some from The National Desk other than that I read various newsies.

[FindersKeepers]

Anyone who watches mainstream media or the “new media” which includes what basically includes blogs but is passed off as media the likes of which include OAN or Newsmax are simply out for entertainment or to justify outlandish conspiracy theories supporting the likes of QAnon. Nothing more.

However; the “mainstream” media at least maintain journalistic standards.

Sadly, that's not true, and it's not even all their fault. The internet killed journalistic integrity. People used to turn on the TV to watch the 6 o'clock news and see reporters who had worked on stories all day. Not anymore. Now, the news has to be instant because the competition is putting it out there as it happens. Not well, mind you, the journalists have to produce a few paragraphs in ten minutes--upload them--and then write updates. The traditional news model is dead.

News outlets no longer have large advertisers and subscriptions that keep them well-staffed and afloat. It's all about affiliate marketing, so the reporters know they have to optimize for SEO so viewers can find their stories. That adds a click-bait flavor, and newsrooms are now virtual and understaffed, so integrity drops.

Then there's the worst factor--intentional polarization. It's so difficult to compete for an audience, the media outlets can't put out the unbiased--just, the fact's ma'am--stories they used to write. Now, they have to find an audience, so they slant their news.

No, the journalistic standards of the last century are gone, killed by the net. Every time you search for a specific story, Google analyzes your searches and clicks and then shows you more of the same and more of the same. Media outlets have to polarize in hopes of finding readers--and they do.

[IMPress Polly]

Sadly, that's not true, and it's not even all their fault. The internet killed journalistic integrity. People used to turn on the TV to watch the 6 o'clock news and see reporters who had worked on stories all day. Not anymore. Now, the news has to be instant because the competition is putting it out there as it happens. Not well, mind you, the journalists have to produce a few paragraphs in ten minutes--upload them--and then write updates. The traditional news model is dead.

News outlets no longer have large advertisers and subscriptions that keep them well-staffed and afloat. It's all about affiliate marketing, so the reporters know they have to optimize for SEO so viewers can find their stories. That adds a click-bait flavor, and newsrooms are now virtual and understaffed, so integrity drops.

Then there's the worst factor--intentional polarization. It's so difficult to compete for an audience, the media outlets can't put out the unbiased--just, the fact's ma'am--stories they used to write. Now, they have to find an audience, so they slant their news.

No, the journalistic standards of the last century are gone, killed by the net. Every time you search for a specific story, Google analyzes your searches and clicks and then shows you more of the same and more of the same. Media outlets have to polarize in hopes of finding readers--and they do.

I think that's substantially true. I also think that two other developments preceding general internet access have been factors in the quality decline in mainstream American journalism in recent decades:

1) The founding of CNN in 1980, which was the first 24-hour news network. It was the only one at the time, which is why it was simply named the Cable News Network. This is where the necessity of constant, real-time updates to stories, and constant need of new material, first came into the picture. Before CNN, it was the evening broadcast on the your station(s) and that was it. It was an inevitable development really. It ran parallel to the ascendancy of cable TV itself.

2) The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. This was a policy established during the Truman presidency that required broadcasters to present more than one perspective on controversial public issues. It was repealed in 1987 under Ronald Reagan, in turn enabling first the rise of what we know today as conservative talk radio, and then of newer, more politically polar cable news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC against which the more straightforward and neutral CNN, as well local news broadcasts, now had to compete.

When you then add the popularization of the internet around the turn of the century, and of social medias around 2010 or so, into the mix, you get our television press of today.

It's not that the editorial-style journalism we see on prime time cable news today is intrinsically bad or something (look at my own programming choices!), it's that people don't tend to do what I do and watch more than one type of programming. People who watch MSNBC don't generally switch to Fox for an evening in the week or vice versa, that sort of thing. They feed themselves only a small range of perspectives when given the opportunity, and the result is that, frankly, most people today live in their own little information bubbles that are ideologically defined and rarely if ever come out and don't understand anyone on the outside. And that's one way you get needless political polarization. People needed to be forced to hear more than one perspective on events. It was better for the country.

I wouldn't say that anything is truly neutral today. There is mainline programming and counter-programming. Around the turn of the century, for several years after 9/11, jingoistic conservativism was the mainline represented by most of the major outlets (including not only Fox, but also CNN, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, etc.) and places like MSNBC that were more prone to like question the Patriot Act and the Iraq War represented counter-programming. Today, in the wake of the Trump era and all that represented (I'm being polite about that), the mainline programming is liberal and represented to varying degrees by everyone but Fox and the QAnon TV networks (Newsmax, OAN) and the various online analogies that influence them. That's how I see it anyway.

[DGUtley]

I really don't watch any news. I have the TIVO set for the panel discussion on Fox at 6:40 - in which 3 or 4 commentators give their opinions. It was Charles Krauthammer's appearance that started me doing it but now I usually delete it without watching it. Every now and then I'll turn on Tucker's monologue for 10 minutes or so just to watch his sarcastic snarkiness - but that's opinion / commentary and not news. If I'm driving out and about in the early afternoon, I like Andrew Wilkow but that's commentary and not news. I pick up a local paper occasionally although now they're all near $3 per day. Like many here, I read and go online.

[Chris]

The media choose to start reporting opinion over fact and many times their own personal opinions over others. You read about it here and there, that they didn't feel the Democratic Party was doing its job and so they had to. It started under Obama, defending his policies as any disagreement was basically racist, and went full-blown under Trump.

[hanger4]

I think that's substantially true. I also think that two other developments preceding general internet access have been factors in the quality decline in mainstream American journalism in recent decades:

1) The founding of CNN in 1980, which was the first 24-hour news network. It was the only one at the time, which is why it was simply named the Cable News Network. This is where the necessity of constant, real-time updates to stories, and constant need of new material, first came into the picture. Before CNN, it was the evening broadcast on the your station(s) and that was it. It was an inevitable development really. It ran parallel to the ascendancy of cable TV itself.

2) The repeal of the Fairness Doctrine. This was a policy established during the Truman presidency that required broadcasters to present more than one perspective on controversial public issues. It was repealed in 1987 under Ronald Reagan, in turn enabling first the rise of what we know today as conservative talk radio, and then of newer, more politically polar cable news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC against which the more straightforward and neutral CNN, as well local news broadcasts, now had to compete.

When you then add the popularization of the internet around the turn of the century, and of social medias around 2010 or so, into the mix, you get our television press of today.

It's not that the editorial-style journalism we see on prime time cable news today is intrinsically bad or something (look at my own programming choices!), it's that people don't tend to do what I do and watch more than one type of programming. People who watch MSNBC don't generally switch to Fox for an evening in the week or vice versa, that sort of thing. They feed themselves only a small range of perspectives when given the opportunity, and the result is that, frankly, most people today live in their own little information bubbles that are ideologically defined and rarely if ever come out and don't understand anyone on the outside. And that's one way you get needless political polarization. People needed to be forced to hear more than one perspective on events. It was better for the country.

I wouldn't say that anything is truly neutral today. There is mainline programming and counter-programming. Around the turn of the century, for several years after 9/11, jingoistic conservativism was the mainline represented by most of the major outlets (including not only Fox, but also CNN, CBS, ABC, the New York Times, etc.) and places like MSNBC that were more prone to like question the Patriot Act and the Iraq War represented counter-programming. Today, in the wake of the Trump era and all that represented (I'm being polite about that), the mainline programming is liberal and represented to varying degrees by everyone but Fox and the QAnon TV networks (Newsmax, OAN) and the various online analogies that influence them. That's how I see it anyway.

The Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to cable newsies, only broadcast. Just sayin

[IMPress Polly]

The Fairness Doctrine didn't apply to cable newsies, only broadcast. Just sayin

There's no question that Fox and MSNBC are consequential of the atmosphere created by the lifting of the policy, and likewise tough to deny that your local newscast is also clearly slanted politically today in a way that probably wouldn't have been allowed under the Fairness Doctrine.

[hanger4]

There's no question that Fox and MSNBC are consequential of the atmosphere created by the lifting of the policy, and likewise tough to deny that your local newscast is also clearly slanted politically today in a way that probably wouldn't have been allowed under the Fairness Doctrine.

The lifting of the Fairness Doctrine only affected the broadcast networks. In that regard the cable newsies had an unfair advantage concerning slanted news/opinion. The lifting put all the newsies on equal footing.