News Anchor Confirmed A$$H@%*!!!
Posted on 04/29/2007 5:47:05 AM PDT by Nextrush
I don’t want a woman to be delivering my serious news. Or sports, either.
Any of the networks could have zoomed into first and continuously widened their lead by hiring Tony Snow as their anchor.
Figure the odds.
Bump
The first and foremost factor is this: it's just a job to them. They have to put out a news program (1) to be taken seriously within the business, and (2) to compete for a small but elderly, loyal, and relatively wealthy audience that tunes in the nightly news and doesn't channel surf during the commercials for Polident, Depends, and all the drug ads.
But at the end of the day, it's just a job. Going conservative, or even "fair and balanced," is rewarded by the good thoughts of millions of American conservatives, who channel surf anyway, and who's good thoughts are worth absolutely nothing. It's also rewarded by millions of hate-mail letters in the mail room, field reporters kidnapped, held for ransom, and killed, as well as the very real threat that some unhinged moonbat leftist like Ted Kaczynski will light off a truck bomb outside their headquarters building.
The people who run television networks are just schlubs who go to work every day. They prance and preen about how courageous they are, how they "speak truth to power," but they only speak truth to power they know they're protected from by the First Amendment. At the slightest hint of any real retaliation, physical retaliation, they'll fold in a split second. And they'll hand out awards to themselves for their courage while doing it.
You’re right about Howard K. Smith; but he was the last of a type: educated by what happened when the appeasers controlled Britain in the thirties, he like Murrow opposed totalitarianism. Smith understood that a Republic ALWAYS had to be defended; and he knew America WAS a republic, not a pure democracy.
Today, we have the blow-dried class of ‘reporter’ who only knows that America is mostly evil, and that the collectivists in the old USSR were never given a fair hearing in the US media.
Sad but true.
Honestly, I can’t believe that anyone watches network news anymore, anyway. The person the writer described is Britt Hume.
CBS remained in third place throughout Dan Rather’s years as anchor, but could always hang their hat on the fact that they hired the guy who went against Nixon one-on-one when he was White House reporter.
Les Moonves could care less about good journalism, unless it’s linked to the entertainment division. That’s what you get with 60 Minutes on Sunday — the reporters are the stars, the little guy is brought out to showcase their anti-goverment or anti-conservative agenda -- with Bradley, Stahl, Wallace, etc. being the center of the piece.
I hadn't thought about it from your perspective, but you’re right. They don’t care about news ratings (but they do care about negative publicity that gets attached directly to Moonves, so she’ll be gone soon).
Just tell me what happened (da*mn it) leave the emotion for me.
Mike Wallace took a hilarious dig at her in an interview with his son, Fox’s Chris Wallace. Mike opined that Katie is doing “the Today show at 6:30.” In other words, feel-good, soft morning TV at night. Ouch!
==> “I don’t want a woman to be delivering my serious news. Or sports, either.” <==
Time for “The Naked News” to go mainstream?
Is anyone else sick of ESPN's stupid Suzy Kolber or that annoying Bernstein chick on the NFL sidelines?
Katie is headed for The View!!
“Is anyone else sick of ESPN’s stupid Suzy Kolber or that annoying Bernstein chick on the NFL sidelines?”
Yo.
Her husband died from colon cancer and she tried to promote awareness for testing to prevent the disease.
A little good in everybody......
I do not watch television (except for an occasional football game) and I do not read newspapers (except for some local stories and some sports content)
I get all my news from the Internet, starting with Free Republic. Basically, I use FR as a springboard to investigate other stories, and as a shortcut to help me frame issues.
While Free Republic is conservative, and to a lesser degree, Libertarian, the people who post here present a wide range of opinions on a given issue ranging from Moonbat (rare) to Liberal to Libertarian to VURWC types. Somewhat in the shape of a broad bell curve with very steep sides and a little tail off on each side, less steep and more tailed off on the Libertarian VURWC side.
I cannot bring myself to go to DU to read what the other side thinks...it is just too disturbing to me. (Plus, I always feel as if I have stumbled into some kind of porn site...)
Here is what I see as the bottom line:
1.) The Media IS biased.
The media IS biased, by their own admission on more than one occasion when caught in unexpected moments of frank candor. I have seen the bias shockingly demonstrated with my own eyes, most recently at the Gathering of Eagles in Washington DC on March 17th where I had my feet on the ground in the street, saw the way things WERE, then with everyone else, went home afterwards and made a point of watching the nature of the coverage on the networks.
2.) News is sensationalism.
They are into sensationalism, not news. They sell sensationalism packaged as unbiased news. They have to make money, and to do that, they have to sell to advertisers. To get watchers, they have to appal to their baser instincts. How many times have you watched the news, only to see someone like Katie Couric appear in front of you wearing the faux Clintonesque mask of grave concern saying in that fake, somewhat vaguely accented and out of breath (think PBS commentator) announcer state: “The next segment contains disturbing content that may not be suitable for children...please exercise discretion...” They appear for all the world to be what Don Henley describes in his song “Dirty Laundry”:
“We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five
She can tell you bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
Its interesting when people die-”
3.) The visual media primarily elicits emotional rather than intellectual repsonses.
The visual form of news, by its very nature, is a terrible way to disseminate “news”, in my opinion. They say the pictures don’t lie, but they lie much worse and much more insidiously than the printed or spoken word does. The case in point, CBS might show a car bombing in Baghdad, and they would show a woman carrying the dead body of her mutilated three year-old child in a crushing, chaotic crowd while she wails hysterically “Why? Why?” much as ANY parent could be expected to. In the background the announcer’s voice intones (in that voice we have all become all to familiar with) “In the four years since the United States has occupied Iraq, thousands of civilians have been killed in car bombs such as this one due to lack of security by the occupying forces, sources say...” What one comes out of that with is a revulsion towards a death of an innocent child, overlaid with the image of poor US policy. Nowhere is there context, who was really responsible (the barbarians killing their own bretheren) and who the good guys are (Iraqis and US Personnel often working together to save and treat the wounded)
I make my living off the evening news Just give me something, something I can use People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundryWell, I could've been an actor, but I wound up here I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry
We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5 She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet? You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's goin' on You don't really want to know just how far it's gone Just leave well enough alone, keep your dirty laundry
Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie We love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry
We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up,
kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em all aroundDirty Laundry ~ Don Henley
Who is this “Baba Wawa Couric” of whom you speak?
You made tremendously good points.
The older population that watches TV news more than the younger one is being bombarded with negative images from Iraq constantly.
The full picture of the situation is not there. People take in what they see and spend little or no time thinking about it.
The reaction of some people is emotional and not thought out as a result.
My first experience with war as selective images and emotional responses was the Tet Offensive in Vietnam.
Even though I was seven years old the images seared my mind and although I could draw no big conclusions back then, it looked bad.
Tet destroyed North Vietnam’s war making capacity for three years, the time bombing was halted for the “peace talks.”
They were hurt badly but only our casualties were on TV.
Lyndon Johnson caved and turned to a “peace process.” All because of the images on TV and not the facts on the ground.
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.