Whatever happened to the real Breaking News!

Beth

Beth

Dedicated Member
I remember back in the day when the news would be on and we would get a general update of what was going on in the world.

Please don't take this the wrong way. I am a very sensitive person and I am very sympathetic for the family members of Flight 370, but can't we just get updates when there is actually something new to say.

All we here is theories of what might have happened. Then they will argue about their different theories. I had almost lost it when I was hearing about the "Zombie" theory which I can understand but I have heard it 3 times and I do believe that would probably never happen in a commercial flight of a plane that big.

See I am starting to talk like them!
 
Its 24 hour news now, before you had the news at 12pm 6pm and 9/10pm and a short bulletin every hour on the radio.

If anything major happened you'd get " We now interrupt this program for a news flash" And we'd be all agog to it but now its 24/7 and they have to fill that time.

It annoys when then they do this to a disaster because every scrap of info is put immediately out there even before they have had time to check for accuracy. Then they back track when they find its not true so you and the those family souls are left not knowing what the hell is going on.

If they left it for a couple of hours to check it all and make sure then it would be real news and not this half fantasy gossip mix that we have now. :unhappy::unhappy:
 
The news media is really getting a hit from internet news channels about just what you are talking about. We use to watch CNN in the AM. It is a joke anymore. They will give a Three sentence story on something that has happened in the middle east, which it seems it has been like that for the past 40 years there. Yet, they do a 7 minute piece on why one of the Kardashien (sp) girls is giving their husband a second chance in their marriage. Is that really news?

Now some internet news channels actually think that it is a government plan to keep us in the dark about happenings in our world. To soften us. For instance when President Obama signed a bunch of executive orders on Christmas Eve one year, one of them being that the government can seize your property under specific situations.:(

Just last night, a news station said that in the 90's when President Clinton was giving his first State of the Union address they were facing a dilemma because the O.J. Simpson verdict was due and they had to make a decision weather to cut into the address to announce, or wait. The decision came right at the end of his speech so they opted to announce that breaking news after the Prez. :30: WHAT ARE YOU KIDDING ME.:30: I couldn't believe it!

Oh by the way Beth I agree with you too:whisper:
 
It seems to me that UK news channels tell us very little of what is happening in the world,when I flick to non UK News channels I am shocked by how much unrest,riots and civil wars are happening around the world.

Why is one man accused of Murder (Oscar Pistorius) singled out for so much media attention when so many murders are committed worldwide on a daily basis and never reported,is it just because he is a sportsman he warrants so much airtime,at the moment he has been overshadowed by the sad loss of a aircraft,but news these days seems to thrive on just a few headline subjects and very little else.

Maybe I missed it but I find once they loose interest in a story they drop it very quickly with no follow up,I'm thinking about the helicopter that crashed into a crane in London along with the Pub in Glasgow,I have not heard any outcome to why these happened
 
Touching on a real bête noire of mine.

A paradox, more and more with 24 hour news coverage we are getting less and less news and more and more the opinion of those who are supposed to bring us the news. And the worst is the BBC - like in most areas its news department is grossly over-manned. Time and time again we are not told what is actually happening but the opinion of whoever is on camera as to what is happening. Far too much analysis and far to little substance. Look how many 'editors' and 'presenters' the BBC puts on as opposed to basic reporters or correspondents.
 
This is why I get nearly all of my news from Public Broadcasting. Morning Edition for two hours first thing Monday through Friday, All Things Considered late in the afternoon, Weekend Edition on the weekends, all on National Public Radio; The News Hour on PBS TV weekday evenings when I'm at home. Local news from my local newspaper every morning. Political analysis from Moyers & Company on PBS every Sunday. Investigative journalism from Frontline on PBS. There are more on Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons, but I seldom have time to pay attention to them.

During local emergencies I listen to the local radio station and, as long as the electricity stays on, look at the local TV stations.

I have to disagree about BBC being the worst for news. Have you seen Fox "News"? Probably available on line for people outside the US.
 
United States - "Public Broadcasting"

index4u said:
This is why I get nearly all of my news from Public Broadcasting. Morning Edition for two hours first thing Monday through Friday, All Things Considered late in the afternoon, Weekend Edition on the weekends, all on National Public Radio; The News Hour on PBS TV weekday evenings when I'm at home. Local news from my local newspaper every morning. Political analysis from Moyers & Company on PBS every Sunday. Investigative journalism from Frontline on PBS. There are more on Friday evenings and Sunday afternoons, but I seldom have time to pay attention to them.

During local emergencies I listen to the local radio station and, as long as the electricity stays on, look at the local TV stations.

I have to disagree about BBC being the worst for news. Have you seen Fox "News"? Probably available on line for people outside the US.
Click to expand...

You criticize Fox News, yet Public Broadcasting, NPR, Moyers & Company and all the so called "news" programs you mention are decidedly left/socialist leaning and are hardly balanced. And the unfortunate thing about them is they are financed, in part, by taxpayer dollars of non-left leaning/socialist citizens.
 
I have to disagree about BBC being the worst for news. Have you seen Fox "News"? Probably available on line for people outside the US.

Yes we get it, sorry I thought it was a comedy show!
I watch it sometimes when there is nothing on. My son said once " Why are you watching this?" I said " Its funny"

I agree we do get more opinion than fact on the BBC at least with Sky you get the odd advert break ( Did I really just say that?) and the thing that really really annoys me is when the news reader ends a sentence really slowly lllllllllikkkkkkkke thhhhheiirrr innnnnnnnn ssssllllooowww motionnnnnnnnn :unhappy: :13:
 
My major reservation about the BBC is that it is a Public Corporation financed by a form of taxation. As such it should be totally unbiased and on any issue it should present facts. strictly facts and should not have a collective opinion. It might carry opinions by non-employees but it should make clear these are outsider opinions on particular issues and on any issue the inputs from outside should be balanced.
 
Dennisbn514 said:
... NPR, Moyers & Company and all the so called "news" programs ... are decidedly left/socialist leaning and are hardly balanced. And the unfortunate thing about them is they are financed, in part, by taxpayer dollars of non-left leaning/socialist citizens.
Click to expand...

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 requires the CPB to operate with a "strict adherence to objectivity and balance in all programs or series of programs of a controversial nature". It also requires it to regularly review national programming for objectivity and balance, and to report on "its efforts to address concerns about objectivity and balance".

Anyone who sees a lack of objectivity and balance in particular programs on PBS/NPR can register his/her complaint with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors, and the programs will be scrutinized in the next review. No point in complaining about Moyers & Company, as it accepts no public financing for production costs. Of course, it's broadcast on stations that are largely supported by listener donations that trigger a very small amount of public money and that attract a somewhat larger amount of private grant money, so the broadcasts are very slightly funded by taxes.

A Hart Research / American Viewpoint poll of February 11-13, 2010 found that 68% of an admittedly small sample of registered voters, slightly more Republicans (highly likely to be "non-left leaning/socialist") than Democrats, opposed eliminating funding for public broadcasting, even though 82% said that reducing the budget deficit was a top or high priority concern. Of course, those percentages may have changed in the last four years, but as far as I know that's the most recent poll.

My only problem with any of the programs I named is that they try so hard to be balanced that they sometimes lean toward the right. That's why I didn't mention watching The McLaughlin Group. Too abrasive and way to the right. It raises my blood pressure so much that I can't watch it.
 
It raises my blood pressure so much that I can't watch it.[/QUOTE]

My feeling exactly when i try to watch or listen to NPR/PBS, Bill Moyers, MSNBC, etc. I guess we agree to disagree.
 
There was a time you could rely more on PBS to give you an unbias news commentary. It is sad that it is gone as well.

It seems that you really can't believe anything you hear on TV.

As soon as the news are pressured in regards to their financial backing or job security, the public is the one that is hurt in the long run.

Freedom is not cheap but we seem to be giving it away here in the states easily.
 
Dennisbn514 said:
It raises my blood pressure so much that I can't watch it.
Click to expand...

My feeling exactly when i try to watch or listen to NPR/PBS, Bill Moyers, MSNBC, etc. I guess we agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]


Potentially sounds like an old debate between Brian Wilde and Bill Owen.

I probably go more along with Index4U with the news, but then Dennis is from the home of the Nittany Lions! So, much love to you all :)
 
Big Unc said:
My major reservation about the BBC is that it is a Public Corporation financed by a form of taxation. As such it should be totally unbiased and on any issue it should present facts. strictly facts and should not have a collective opinion. It might carry opinions by non-employees but it should make clear these are outsider opinions on particular issues and on any issue the inputs from outside should be balanced.
Click to expand...


The real problem is where do you find unbiased reporting? Even when I read newspapers they contained a great deal of bias (Guardian vs Telegraph for example often seemed to be reporting a different event although it was the same.)Or would there be a lot less news - because if you only reported facts there might not be a lot to say, only opinion which is often not highlighted as such.

Reporters are despatched to places and they tell us very little because often the whole story is not known, but as already mentioned they are fighting to be first.

Any good sources of news in UK?
 
Its all bias now because before 24/7 news they only had time for the facts.
Dick it was the school gates for me :D
 
I get really frustrated when they drag the weather out, and also when they throw out teasers about stories that turn out to be featured two or three commercial breaks later or worse, 90% of the story was given in the teaser. And then sometimes the last story is the latest update on those competition shows (Dancing for the Stars, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top