Guardian UK: Why TV news in the US is utter rubbish

Why TV news in the US is utter rubbish
It's not just that world events are ignored in favour of celebrity gossip. News anchors skew the facts to provoke debate

Kieren McCarthy
guardian.co.uk, Thursday August 07 2008 19:30 BST



For years it has been a joke that news in the United States is terrible: obsessed with trivia and celebrity; fronted by Botox bimbos; forever interviewing citizens about some artefact of small-town life when a major news story is breaking elsewhere.

Well, the truth is that it's far, far worse than that. There are a multitude of news channels - CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Fox. But after an hour of flipping between them during lunchtime last week, this was the sum total of information gleaned: there are two US presidential candidates; they have produced campaign ads; people have made video parodies and posted them on the internet; a US TV news host appeared on a US TV chatshow last night; and someone said something controversial (read ignorant) on a different TV show the day before.

In the meantime, one of the most sought-after war criminals in the world had been arrested and sent for trial; several new scientific breakthroughs had been announced; Zimbabwe edged carefully toward shared government; the Indian government dealt with votes of no-confidence and terrorist attacks; and countless other real stories came and went. For millions of Americans, these events appeared as 15-word tickertapes at the bottom of their 36-inch widescreen TVs.

It's not the absolute dearth of real news that is the problem, however. It's the fact that the news that is presented isn't news but mindless, misleading gossip. The clearest example of this is when one of the (between two and six) commentators on any given story provides their "analysis".

This comprises of showing a video clip and then talking with the assumed voice of the person in the clip. So, for example, Barack Obama gave a press conference. A clip of around four or five seconds of what he said is shown and then the TV studio people take over. ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/07/usa.uselections2008

i often think that amerika does not want truth

I stopped listening to the US "news" about 10 years ago.
I recommend everyone else do the same.
The BBC is good, as is Reuters.

Next thing you are going to tell me is that those things in it are NOT raisins?

corporate media propaganda that is literally poisoning the well being of the American People.

I believe that is the sole purpose for the corporate media to actively dumb down the American People by using the sin of omission of which the Guardian alludes to.

If the people are ignorant as to the critical issues of the day, the oligarchs and the mega corporations can rule over them with impunity. If the people are ignorant, corrupt incompetence become easier for the corporate media to promote to power. The corporations are the corporate media's clients not the American People we're only customers to be sold or more precisely sold down the river.

I believe the American People want the truth more than anything from the corporate media, but the corporate media have a conflicting agenda and thus promote the myth that the American People can't handle the truth. This is the excuse the corporate media use in betraying the American People.

for the kiddies and locals.

NoFederales

intimidated by the power of corporate media propaganda, should they buck the trend. I believe many in education know this corporate media propaganda power and it's potential effect to brain wash the American People in to demonizing any person or people.

Liberal didn't become a dirty word because a few rabid Republicans uttered it, only the corporate media echo chamber whether by explicit or implicit means brought about that distortion.

A Liberal is more likely to support universal health care as 40+ million Americans don't have any insurance and 60+ million are under insured. But this goes against corporate media philosophy of keeping everything corporate, I suspect this is because corporations buy the corporate media's commercials not so much the people.

A Liberal is more likely to support environmental reforms while putting government oversight on polluting corporations, knowing the corporations will not clean up their own act as the corporations are only concerned about the short term bottom line; in reality this is only the sub-total not the true bottom line. Again this goes against corporate media support of trusting in all things corporate. The corporations are their clients, not the people dying from pollution.

A Liberal is more likely to believe in international cooperation instead of U.S. domination by waging premeditated war through lies, however this goes against the military industrial complex not to mention oil and other corporate interests. The underlying theme with the corporate media is corporate domination = good, government by the people for the people and of the people = bad.

The truth of the matter is, the corporate media not only don't believe in Liberal causes, they don't truly believe in conservative, libertarian, or populist causes either. They only believe in one cause that being corporate domination and any "ideology" which they believe can further that ultimate goal, will be exploited by them for all it's worth.

has left me...unfulfilled. I changed no policies, but I was a voice, a "conscience" for causes that others felt no compulsion to champion. I am, at best, very indifferent to those folks.

So, I'm plowing other fields for future growth, but wondering what hammers or tongs are awaiting......

Thank you for your insights.

NoFederales

What does that mean?

A must-read really.

The mass hysterical denial in this country is truly astounding

He is 100% correct.

effects of federal broadcast policy or of anything really ...

would mostly agree with this article (if they were told about it). And they would blame it all on the "liberal media." They ain't gonna analyze nothin. So the articulate observations in this article can always be preempted and twisted, regardless of the analysis.

Firstly, as an opinion columnist, he gets little pressure to explain. If that had been a normal piece of reportage, the reporter would be told to analyse the reasons. As it is, he doesn't have to and may not even know.
Secondly, the Guardian (like most of the other broadsheets) assumes it's readers are bright enough to pick up on connections themselves and follow-up on the information if they choose to.

You're kept in the dark, and fed a lot of sh*t.

and we've let ourselves down.

And was disgusted at how effective the propaganda there is. If they don't get it now, they're never going to get it. The world will be falling down around rural midwesterner's ears and they won't have a clue as to what happened.

Thanks for posting this. I am going to use it in my classes.



Cher

organizations have become

I watch BBC America News because in an hours time I can see what is really going on in the world including here, but only read short synopsis on crawler on American "news" shows.

They even do better interviews. When they were in the south asking people about the candidates for President, they actually talked to real people and showed them. They even showed the freeper types just as they were including any bigotry and stupidity.

For those who don't know, BBC World News America is not the same as the half-hour PBS version. It's expanded and upgraded, with more interesting stories and interviews with key persons like Richard Holbrooke, and is shown on the BBC America channel twice a night. They are like Newshour, only more interesting.

Other than that, I watch the local CBS affiliate just for weather and to see if there's anything exciting going on locally like a festival or something. I'm pretty sick of the network news--they never get much past the headline. Cable is pretty dismal too: When I turn on CNN, nine times out of ten they are having a commercial. MSNBC is content-poor except that I do watch the first half of Countdown.

The BBC World news block on BBC America from 6-9am Eastern is the "real" World News from London, not the customized version from Washington that's shown in the evening.

wakes me to BBC every morning and I skip Hardball to watch it in the evening one. If I'm home I watch the earlier Hardball.

We have SBS News which is also world-centric and has some truly fabulous news pieces. This was the only network I saw that covered the journalist who openly confronted Robert Mugabe and has reported on obscure but fascinating stories such as the elderly King of Tonga passing on the throne to his unpopular son and what implications this will have on the country.

Take a look here: http://news.sbs.com.au/worldnewsaustralia/

It's a fantastic news source. And I probably don't have to mention that this is the only news organization in all of Australia that is not absolutely LITTERED with blondes.

:o

Kerry O'Brien's a redhead!

One of a veerry small number, even for the fellows! But he is a former athlete, which seems to be the gateway to all fame and fortune in this country. :)

What some substance?

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/index.html

And I still have read it all.

and the sheeple, who know no better.

They changed their rules to allow the Prime Minister to control appointments to the governing board . . . this was over a year ago. Maybe I just missed it; but I haven't heard a story critical of the US on the BBC for quite some time.

It's not enough for us to complain about the media to each other.

you've been reading the overseas link. Try using our normal home link : http://news.bbc.co.uk/

The Beeb are not in a position to be selective about their news as they are in competition with ITV and Sky - being selective would give them a credibilty problem.

The PM does now have control over appointments but it doesn't (yet) seem to have had an effect. Might do in time though. Essentially, the nature of the daytime bulletins doesn't allow for much analysis but if you watch the 24 hour channel, there's quite often stuff which is indirectly critical of the US (outright criticism, they tend to shy away from due to the Beeb's tendancy to "just the facts, ma'am").

The Deutsch WOrld News Journal,. Mosaic News, International Dateline.all very good straightforward news programs.

Mosaic is a new one on me though. Got a link?

http://www.linktv.org/mosaic

:hi:

It shares some of the same news programmes as BBC World News.

The BBC News Channel (previously News 24) is only available in the UK.

BBC America: www.bbcamerica.com

BBC World News: www.bbcworldnews.com

The problem is the global corporate press. It's in every country.

Newsflash: Ours is by far the most pathetic, no contest.

Perhaps, but the EU has just as much pro-EU marketing spin as we have (similarly Canada). We just
see it differently. It's every bit as dishonest.

You're a lot more likely to find out about what's going on in the rest of the world on the Beeb or the CBC. That's easily verifiable.

Every country has a national bias. Every journalistic entity reflects those biases. In the case of our country, they are intensified by the profit-making nature of it all. You will receive more information but the level of integrity is equally stilted in all countries when you're not dealing with one's own nation or national interests.

n/t

TV is perfect for sports and comedy, anything shallow enough works out fine.

Once upon a time, networks didn't consider their news organizations as needing to contribute to the bottom line. It was simply a duty of the network to inform the public as to what was going on in the world, and whatever it cost to do so was just part of the cost of running the network.

At some point, somebody decided that the news organizations would no longer be financially carried on the backs of the rest of the networks' divisions, but would now have to start covering their own costs. Since ratings are what determines what the networks can charge to those who advertise on the network, ratings for the news shows became all important. No longer would the public be delivered the information they needed to make them informed citizens, now they would be given whatever was determined to drive the ratings up.

Ratings up, quality down. Don't give them what they need to know, give them what they want to know. So, goodbye to important events in eastern Europe (what's this, you say? Russia and Georgia are at war?), hello to the all-Britney Spears network.

To paraphrase some monkey I heard talking.


Although, my post exemplifies some of what the article mentioned. It's more than just the money. It's power, ideology, and money. The FCC allowed conglomeration, the conservatives with their power and agendas bought and held more channels, and the people fueled it with money that ads generated.

we're number 1!

for the worst news outfits in the world that is.

It may not be the best, but it's a damn sight better than anything we've got here.

... and had an epiphany!

It's been down hill ever since...

With a few exceptions, we have a bunch of jokers masquerading as journalists. If you have to distill everything to the least common denominator under the ruse of "We are giving what the people want" ..this is what you get- A nation full of idiots.

In rest of the world, the focus of the news is on the ...er... News. Here we are obsessed with the Anchor.. How did we land in this mess?

What they REALLY think makes this article seem tame by comparison. The US
media is a joke around the world--and a bad joke at that. They have turned
into propaganda tools of their money sponsors (read big business Republicans)
who report as their sponsors want them to, or not at all.

This appears to be common knowledge everywhere in the world EXCEPT in the USA.

Nothing here.

be held accountable for presenting the factual, truthful hard news, this will go on. It's something about their First Amendment rights. Duh! Don't we the people have First Amendment rights to the truth and a correction every time they lie or ignore until they get the message and stop it?

you're asking elites to run "news" which does harm to them ---

We need anti-trust laws to bust this up!!!

And our nation is suffering from a minimum of 30 years of this crap --- !!!

NOTHING really was being reported after the coup on government in '63 ---

the right wing couldn't afford to have an iota of info getting out ---


TRUTH is quite dangerous to myth ---

it's like getting close to a really large mirror with a stone --- !!!

Myth just shatters easily ---

I quit over 15 years ago. even if they actually had something to say; negotiating around the commercials was too much for me.

I know a lot of people DO watch tv news. I always wonder what they are getting out of it.

the breaking point for me was the combination of the tabloid content and the distractions onscreen: the ticker shit, the graphics, several talking heads in tiny squares, just endless f***ing nonsense. When I'm flipping channels it just kills me what I see - for example, the tragic story of a missing child whose mother has been charged with neglect. FOR MORE ON THIS STORY, LET'S CHECK IN WITH NANCY GRACE!! I mean, WTF? It's making a mockery of a tragedy. It's all just tabloid trash now.

They invented the tabloid, so hearing it from them means something.

You can tell the difference between their quality newspapers and their tabloids.

(hint, if there is a naked woman on page 3, it's probably a tabloid).

It is truly sad that we have worse media these days than the British...

half the "newscasters" down here look like they're dressed to go out to the club as soon as they're finished at work.

The Guardian cannot be dismissed as a crackpot blogger or a lefty propaganda organ, either.

But, of course, the mainstream media will not report on this critique and the vast majority of the American sheeple will continue to bleat their quiet contentment.

The chocolate ration was just increased.
:party:

:rofl: or :cry: at your post, so I'm doing both.

A nasty war starting between Russia and Georgia, but all the emphasis is on the John Edwards affair. We need look no farther for conclusive evidence that our news is a tabloid joke. Your're hard pressed to find a real journalist over here anymore.

It is more than appropriate to report on the Edwards affair, but not for every minute of every so-called news show. That is irresponsible. So many days are one-story news days on our TV stations. How pathetic.

form and appearance but no beef

country that pisses me off the most. as someone who is learning a profession where i will be accountable to the public (veterinarian), i and my fellow students take what we do very seriously. i'm sure there are students in professional journalism programs that feel the same way. where the hell are they?? do they just not get hired? or do they change to play the game? or are they stuck behind the scenes so the celebs can take over? why does it seem that few (like the amy goodmans and glenn greenwalds out there) actually care? how is it that journalism is just another arm of the entertainment industry and no one seems to want to change it?

i think breaking the media conglomerations is one of the first thing that needs to be done for bringing honesty back to the news.

of crappy news. Its the reason so many are on the internet. This Edwards thing just suports this.. 4 to 5hrs of the same shit.. and the Nightline special isn't even close to being played yet.

.. Its a free country ( I think) ..If someone wants to discuss "Oh my Gaaaaad .. they put this guy with a funny name in an ad with Paris ..." till kingdom comes , well that's their prerogative. But whats up of with the rest of news world ... Does EVERYONE have to listen/watch to the shit they dare call news :banghead:

Happily, the Irish are interested in America and dedicate a lot of newspaper space to it; unhappily, most of what they report is gleaned from "the mainstream media" . . .

Chinese and Americans are fed about the same quality information.
It seems that the net may fix the problem over time.

hoping one day it will be better when when do the "peeking."

I've often wondered why I can't cancel my Cable like so many here on DU have. I guess I've always been one of those "cockeyed optimists" who still believe things will change. But, hope is getting thin.

whoever is responsible, that is. Not so just to use the news as a source of distraction and disinformation, but to blunt the concept of "news" itself and make it so irrelevant even in the minds of reasonably sane people that when something so big and loud as to be undeniable finally does happen, they will be numb even to whatever grains of truth actually filter down to them.

For instance, the day of Tuesday 9/11/2001 I was working at a tech support hotline for a video game company. (This is back when many companies still had their call centers in the US.) I ended up going in to work anyway because I only just heard the news of the towers collapse while I was still commuting. But I was amazed that there were people not only calling in about their stupid video games all day, but several of them made references to the unfolding events as "all that crap in the news."

This is the way the world ends. Even if God himself came down and personally strangled George Bush and Dick Cheney in front of a press gathering at high noon in Times Square, people would still be walking around talking about American Idol or the Mets. And it's not necessarily because they're stupid (although that helps), it's because the folks on the Teevee have spent so much time making it absolutely clear that NOTHING they have to say is worth a shit EVER.

that I sense. Or am I being overly sensitive? Yes, it is a reality that the MSM is corporate owned and thus completely incompetent at doing what they should do. It is still not an excuse for looking down on Americans as from the looks of things we have wised up and used our invention called the Internet to offset that corporate swill that the MSM has tried to feed us. Otherwise, how do you explain the massive upswing in Democratic registrations despite all the pro-Republican crap that's been pushed down our throats for the better part of a decade?

Although I have to admit, that if you consider them as faces of America, the MSM really do serve as an extreme caricature of America as the ignorant, retarded and pompous cowboy wannabe asshole.

not even a sliver.

As for the increase in Democratic registrations, there are some things so corrupt, incompetent and blatant even the corporate media can't hide them anymore, particularly with the Internet serving as a real free press for the people, however this hasn't stopped the corporate media from trying.

While the Internet is growing, the corporate media is still the predominant medium and the same dark forces; which have spent so much time, energy and resources to control and eliminate the good effects of that medium will surely not give up without making serious attempts at neutralizing the growing power and influence of the American People's voice via the Internet.

the media already there. Right now, a renaissance of the fourth estate is still rather newborn with the bloggers and citizen journalism happening. But there's no consistent level of quality as with the more commercial media (although with them, it's just a consistent level of crappiness).

1. The informed participation of its citizenry.
2. The free flow of accurate information."

Democracy for Idiots

You can watch the video at thedailyshow.com

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=178681&title=david-gregory