Andy McNabb wrote:

Barring this week's monstrous mistakes as made by some of our most recognized news organizations, radio, tv and online news coverage can have more impact, more ratings and more revenue in much the same way by which radio sellers capitalize on radio's pre-need, pre-search, pre-purchase strengths to catalyze consumer considerations and continually qualify customers and call them to action.  All that, and using digital's ability to accelerate and track that customer journey to produce greater advertising revenue.

"Recognized" DOESN'T necessarily mean respected Andy.  I can't compare CNN to MSNBC 'cause I don't subscribe to it.  And I don't compare CNN to FOX which I wouldn't watch with YOUR eyes.  Besides...CNN is well beyond bad enough.

I don't mind opinions and 'takes' on something when people are DISCUSSING the news and the people who make it.  What I want though is not both outlandish sides spewing their ignorant propaganda and bold faced lies.  That's what we're being served morning, noon and night.

How So?  
News reporting catalyzes the thought process, and continues to facilitate it throughout the audience’s decision-making process. 

The reporters do their thing reasonably well.  It's the panel experts who bog it down with tons of just plain STUPID.

First, Distinguish News Reporting From Op-Ed
The long game in news reporting is based on trust – trust that the consumer has, in that the facts presented by the media company are in fullness of context (the truth, the full truth and nothing but the truth), taking pains to eliminate natural bias, so that the audience can take ownership and make up their own minds. 

That's true of those who aren't just looking to be entertained but rather for some REAL information and educated analyses.

Op-ed (whether by blog, stand-alone segments, or announcer comments) is recognized for giving a voice for differing opinions that have inherent bias (good or bad), and is often intended to shape others’ perceptions. 
Both news reporting and op-ed are extremely valuable in a democracy, and for long-term success, always need to be distinguished.  As long as the labeling is clear – no problem.

I disagree when there is only ONE agenda and when THAT agenda is to lie and further the talking points of the minute.  There's NOTHING useful contained there-in.  The purpose of these 'segmental' intrusions is simply to CON the ignorant.

What Marks The End Of Your Credibility?
Forget the fool’s game of name calling or blaming one side for greater sins when the other side has plenty of its own.  Look at things objectively.  Whether you lean left or right, it doesn’t matter – the beginning of the end of a media person’s credibility – and that of their employer – is the purposeful manipulation of what is labelled as news reporting (along with content that the audience would expect to be objective), when it is purposely shaped according to the bias or opinion of the person delivering such.

The END is clearly marked when facts are dismissed as being contrary to achieving a specific goal.  The END is reinforced when those same culprits reappear in order to do it all over again with their newest list of preordained candidate swill.

Where Do You Draw The Line?
The blurring of lines between biased opinion and news – without distinguishing such –  ruins credibility, respect, ratings and revenue.  The “because it’s 2016” argument doesn’t justify what’s happening.  In our hyper-communicated, media-saturated, focus-fractured, attention-deficit-disordered world, clarity – more than ever – is the currency of profitable, sustainable audience and business relationships.

Starting with the debates last winter and into the spring I would have had total control of every microphone.  As one candidate speaks...all other mics are OFF.  When the moderator moves to the next person...his or her mic goes on and the previous speaker's goes off.  Candidates would learn in a hurry when to speak and when to shut up.  Time-lines would be rigorously adhered to.  I would do the exact same thing when these party 'reps'' come into the studio for their aggravating panel discussions.

Also...if I have a guest on and they won't answer my question[s] I'd send 'em packing in a New York second.  And if they deviate to begin the party-line diatrab?  They're toast IMMEDIATELY.

When you let the clowns run the show...the whole thing becomes a circus.

This Week – Monster Mistakes And Three Big Lessons From Three News Organizations
I spend more time with CNN than any other broadcast news service.  I say that as a Canadian, and one whose values are on the “right” (vs left) of the middle ground of public opinion. 

Matters not whether you're right or left.  Wrong is wrong.  We deserve WAY better.

Yet, this week, as per the images accompanying this post, when I see reporting of CNN’s Headline News blurring out a “Trump For President” emblem on a t-shirt of an interviewee, when I see reporting of CNN’s “doctoring” the text of a Trump tweet – without identifying their doing so – it causes concern, in that I think “What else are they doctoring?”. 

The root causes are further exacerbated in our schools.  You’ve heard it said too many times, that rather than being taught, rewarded and graded for thinking independently, identifying a position, and building a case for that position, that students are too often inculcated, indoctrinated, then rewarded and positively graded for aligning with the views of their instructors - with the opposite effect on those who don't align. 

THIS stuff should be edited out.  No name calling allowed...after it's been reported the first time...it's gone.  CNN underlines the foolishness and one candidate has saved a ton of MONEY 'cause the 'junk' is smeared across the screen and out of the speakers ad infinitum.  Society is taking a shit kicking and CNN is as at fault as the perpetrator of this hogwash.  Easy to see who skipped classes and had 'daddy' pay for better grades.  Very VERY easy.

Two Questions
Question One:
Is the profitable and sustainable future of radio/tv – and news reporting at large – best left to “independent-minded fact-seekers, or a cadre of covert operatives”?*   

The answer is obvious.  But it ain't gonna happen.  Also...Wolf Blitzer is as about as useless a TV journalist as I can recall.  His reputation FAR excedes his abilities.  He's too soft and way too ill-prepared to be in front of a camera at the best of times.  He made a name for himself covering Dubya's shock and awe campaign in Iraq [pron eye-RACK]  And for that?  He continues to float.  Get him out and put somebody with at least 2 sets of marbles in there.  He allows the operatives to operate.

Question Two: 
What is the most short and long-term profitable solution (without profit, there aren't going to be people paid to do it) to enhance clarity, credibility, and impact? 



1.  Don't carry speeches live.  Fact check 'em, carry them after the fact and at each case of misinformation...interrupt the individual in order to correct all of the BS with FACT.  Things will change up in a hurry.  Get rid of 80-90% of the so-called experts.  THAT'll save money.  Don't be afraid to cut a candidate off and then get them off the air immediately.  THEY need you at least as much as you need them.  Show them the rules and how you expect them to play the game YOUR WAY.



Cover other news stories too...including those which require less equipment and staff.  Quit sending everybody on the road every time there's a catastrophe.  THAT's overkill by about 4 or 5.

Maybe then you'll get some respect...

Outside of Fareed and Anderson...CNN is pretty much poop.

Time waits for no one. 
Really?  Wow!!  Who knew???

Last edited by Old Codger (September 3, 2016 3:21 pm)