Posted on 03/14/2005 6:53:31 PM PST by Zechariah11
Bob Scheiffer has an unaffected style and no apparent bias. He is turning out to be a very watchable anchor.
First impressions of him may be such, but I've heard him make some very bias comments before.
I mean, his favorite president-to cover-was Gerald Ford.
GERALD FORD, PEOPLE!
(Prolonged eye roll.)
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
He's See-B.S. He'll cover what his masters tell him to cover and cover it the way they say to cover it. Bottom line is that he IS at See-B.S. Much like professors get to stay at Universities. (guess what political persuasion they are...)
He's not going to be there very long though. Let's see who they get for the long haul.
Did you happen to notice who the Editor was? Dan-o was his own editor.
The spin is still there. Notice how they frame a segment. They always present their (the Left's) opinion at the end of the segment so as to leave you with that thought.
Thank God he's bland. It's about time after all of these pretty-boy prima donnas. It's nice to have the anchor get out of the way instead of intently mugging and every occasion.
Sheesh!
What's his favorite color? Beige?
Favorite food? Pork chops?
Scheiffer doesn't do much except read a few headlines and cut to a correspondent. They ALL editorialize the stories they present, and this is where the bias shows up.
Same ole shi........
Give him time. He's a lefty, though maybe not as dishonest about it as Rather.
Certainly you don't believe a couple days' worth of shows will change the organization that Ratherbiased built, do you?
Besides, bland isn't unbiased - it's boring. Not that the final demise of network news would be a bad thing...
I haven't watched network news for years. I get most of my news off of FreeRepublic.
What a smart move that was, to put Scheifer in the anchor chair. (rolling eyes) Really gives cBS that cutting edge feel. Bwahahaha.
It'd be more exciting watching paint dry.
Ford....lol. He played football, so I have to give him some credit...until I remember that he played for that school in Ann Arbor....
Here's a thought: why do we actually NEED anchors? I mean, what do they actually DO? They sit there and read a bit. It's always seemed to me that this takes up valuable camera time on the nightly broadcast. There's a slow pan in as the dramatic music plays, a slow pan out as we go to commercial, wherein the newsreader (the BBC term) makes some notes on some paper at his desk ("MEMO: 1. Stop at market for prosciutto; 2. Call Kinko's re: price quote for forging documents; 3. Make appt. for hair re-lacquering"), and some showoff footage of people working at desks in the background, making phone calls to show that it's a Real Working Newsroom ("Hi Mom! Can you see me? Nope, just playing FreeCell.") That's got to eat up 3 or 4 minutes of what is already a very short broadcast.
The newsreader is an anachronism, a leftover from the old days when we didn't have instant video via satellite from all over the globe. The guy would have to sit there and READ the news, because there weren't any pictures. Maybe a bit of film, if you were lucky.
Fire the talking heads, ditch the studio. Throw a graphic up at the front of the broadcast and bang, go straight into the news. It needs narration? Fine. Hire somebody with a pleasant voice (Hugh Hewitt springs to mind) to sit at a microphone and talk over the video.
That would save the beleaguered MSM, already losing money faster than a kosher deli in Damascus, a bag full of money per broadcast, AND they'd be able to, I don't know, cram a bit more actual NEWS in there.
His favorite food is plain white bread with water.
I don't trust the old media. Period.
If they are less liberal, it isn't because they want to be. It's because they are trying to sucker people.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.