• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

TV news has certainly changed

Logical1

Logical1

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,307
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

If you are getting your news from the TV, that is your problem right there. Text can contain more information and go far more into depth that TV. So turn off FOX and learn a little.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

Ironic coming from someone who watches Fox news, the biggest perpetuator of spinning the news and not just presenting facts. A place that flat out lies about the news
 
The OP is ignorant glory days BS. Opinions have always permeated all news.

We glorify the past when the future dries up.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

And you have one man to thank for that. Mr Roger Ailes creator of Fox News.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons I don't own a TV...that, and the never-ending deluge of commercials.

I'm better off with neither in my life.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...



It is best not to comment on things you don’t know about.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

I agree. Now the President of the United States tells us what to think over twitter.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

There used to be a law stating that news had to be delivered without bias. The law was thrown out about 20 years ago. You can see the results today. They still try not to lie but the stories they present are often incomplete, so as to present the ideal they want.
 
daeler said:
There used to be a law stating that news had to be delivered without bias. The law was thrown out about 20 years ago. You can see the results today. They still try not to lie but the stories they present are often incomplete, so as to present the ideal they want.
Click to expand...

The fairness doctrine did not require news to be without bias, it required opposing view to be presented. The doctrine was only upheld because of the limited spectrum available for OTA (over the air) broadcasts. With the emergence of cable television and then internet based media sources, the argument that the FCC could impose these types of requirements seems unlikely to survive any court challenge.
 
BlueTex said:
The fairness doctrine did not require news to be without bias, it required opposing view to be presented. The doctrine was only upheld because of the limited spectrum available for OTA (over the air) broadcasts. With the emergence of cable television and then internet based media sources, the argument that the FCC could impose these types of requirements seems unlikely to survive any court challenge.
Click to expand...

You have to admit that something needs to be done to curb the news reporting at this point. No outright lies are told but the disinformation is horrible. Some people only tell 30% of a story so it appears to tell the story they want.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

My TV is off most of the time. Radio is off. I rather read a good book, something inspiring.
 
daeler said:
You have to admit that something needs to be done to curb the news reporting at this point. No outright lies are told but the disinformation is horrible. Some people only tell 30% of a story so it appears to tell the story they want.
Click to expand...
Outright lying and deliberate spreading of disinformation among certain commentators (separated from actual news journalists) happens every day. Part of the price of having freedom of speech.

Our responsibility, as consumers, is to crosscheck and validate information we take in. The onus has really always been on us. Nowadays it just requires greater diligence.

DamnYankee said:
My TV is off most of the time. Radio is off. I rather read a good book, something inspiring.
Click to expand...
This ^^ explains a lot of your uninformed posts.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

"With television you just sit, watch, listen. The thinking is done for you."
--Roger Ailes - 1970 - "A Plan for Putting the GOP on TV News" (memo to Nixon)
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

I think we give the propaganda on TV too much credit when we refer to it as "news". It isn't news.
 
Logical1 said:
The change of TV news from say 1965 as compared to now is amazing. In 1965 the TV newscaster told us, and showed us what happened. We could then come to our own conclusion.

Now the TV "newscasters" cause us to wonder if what they put on was fake or an out right lie. They try to tell us what we should think.

This is a sorry state of affairs.
Click to expand...

The big difference is in 1965 TV news reported on our political. Today, TV news has taken sides in our political battles. This is especially true when it comes to cable news.
 
DamnYankee said:
My TV is off most of the time. Radio is off. I rather read a good book, something inspiring.
Click to expand...

I very rarely turn on TV news. Basically because when I do I'm either getting pro Trump propaganda from one network or anti Trump propaganda for the other two networks. What ever happen to reporting the news fully, fairly and accurately? Political agendas have taken over. Now we have news networks that side with the Democrats and another than sides with the Republicans when reporting what they call news. Actually it is more akin to straight propaganda straight out of the RNC and DNC.
 
ecofarm said:
The OP is ignorant glory days BS. Opinions have always permeated all news.

We glorify the past when the future dries up.
Click to expand...

really?

ever see a cronkite broadcast? harry reasoner? or any of those guys from the 60's and 70's

it was hard facts....places, names, dates, times....you know the who, what, where, when, why and how

at the very END of the broadcast, there were 2 minutes allocated for an opinion piece...which happened some nights, and didnt happen other nights

it was LEFT TO THE VIEWER to interpret the news....not a panel of people telling you what you ought to think about it

that is why the OP is saying....and i totally agree
 
daeler said:
You have to admit that something needs to be done to curb the news reporting at this point. No outright lies are told but the disinformation is horrible. Some people only tell 30% of a story so it appears to tell the story they want.
Click to expand...

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. [...] During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves.
 
gdgyva said:
really?

ever see a cronkite broadcast? harry reasoner? or any of those guys from the 60's and 70's

it was hard facts....places, names, dates, times....you know the who, what, where, when, why and how

at the very END of the broadcast, there were 2 minutes allocated for an opinion piece...which happened some nights, and didnt happen other nights

it was LEFT TO THE VIEWER to interpret the news....not a panel of people telling you what you ought to think about it
Click to expand...


Same diff. 24 hours instead of half an hour.

What we may need is a half hour news show with 2 minutes of 20 for opinion and call it a day. For old people.
 
daeler said:
You have to admit that something needs to be done to curb the news reporting at this point. No outright lies are told but the disinformation is horrible. Some people only tell 30% of a story so it appears to tell the story they want.
Click to expand...

Why? Who are you suggesting "do something"?
 
Rickeroo said:
I think we give the propaganda on TV too much credit when we refer to it as "news". It isn't news.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, when you have multiple organizations competing with each other this lessens the impact of propaganda, as any one organization can undermine the propaganda of another.

Unfortunately, if there is only one singular source of information that panders to a particular political ideology (as is the case for conservatives in Fox News) the effects of propaganda become amplified since the viewership doesn't get opposing views and tends to accept everything they hear as gospel truth, and you get an entire minority of voters who are mislead into believing that any information that challenges what they hear on their singular network must be fake news. Unfortunately, it is far more likely that this single network which caters to this singular ideology will be inundated with propaganda that reinforces what its viewers would prefer to believe. When a politician taps into this, he has the equivalent of an enslaved group of uneducated voters who are not aware of any outside current events who will blindly accept whatever horse**** he sees fit to shovel into their living rooms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom