Mr Ed??!!!

Mostly they focus on making money. In my opinion they do it in a short-sighted way that leads to a loss of credibility, which in turn eventually leads to a loss of profitability.

In newspapers it's been repeated around the country: new owner comes in, slashes staff, and increases the amount of advertising in the paper. Profits go up and stockholders are happy. But credibility eventually takes a turn for the worse, and the once-trusted source of local news becomes a local joke.

I once worked as a reporter for a paper where this was the case. One Saturday, a local kid was arrested for plotting to shoot-up a school in a city we covered. A serious cache of weapons was recovered. There was only one reporter on staff on the weekends and it happened to be someone who wasn't very good, IMO. This was a national story that attracted CNN, the NY Times, and just about any other national news organization you could think of. We ran an AP story about it even though it happened in our own back yard. To sum it up, we were a terrible newspaper and it wasn't a secret amongst our subscriber base.

I have no experience in TV media but when I tune into cable "news," I think I see the same thing happening. People like O'Reilly and Olberman have followings and sell ads (apparently), but I suspect they ultimately turn more people off than they attract.

I'm sure there are many reasons for the declining numbers of people who turn to traditional outlets for news, but a lack of quality product is a reason that looms large in my mind.

Maybe not exactly what you were asking about, but it came to mind.

__________________
Ralph

1985 300D Turbo, CA model
248,650 miles and counting...

I know a great deal about just a few topics in the world. When the media has had the occasion to report on these topics the results have been disappointing. They never, and I do mean never get the facts straight. I am not referring to media bias, as I am quite sure it exists, only the plain facts of where, when and how. Granted, they could be just screwing up the issues that I know about....? I wish I could say I think that they are trying to manipulate the populace. I fear the reality is they are completely clueless and haphazardly report anything that they think might increase viewership/readership. RT

__________________
When all else fails, vote from the rooftops!
84' Mercedes Benz 300D Anthracite/black, 171K
03' Volkswagen Jetta TDI blue/black, 93K
93' Chevrolet C2500HD ExCab 6.5TD, Two-tone blue, 252K

The internet, when it comes to news reporting, is not so much a "wealth of information" as it is noise obscuring the signal. While every cellphone camera on the planet may be able to deliver a picture or clip . . . does it provide the facts or merely sampling the ocean with a thimble? The latter I think.

The internet model of news reporting is scary. If there is no economic model, who pays for the real reporters working on real stories to prevent us from ending up with TMZ or YouTube reporting. If more newspapers can't afford to operate, it's going to be one long sucession of news stories about young caucasian women going missing.

^^^ I'll bet most (if not all) traditional news sources have websites to which they frequently post news through the day. Finding them can be a PITA, but that's where Google News rocks. It will give tens, if not hundreds of news sources for any major story. Most of them are redundant -- AP or Reuters feed. But with due diligence one can also find original sources for news.

Let's say there's an international story about some hot topic -- Iraq? From my home I can check several Arab news sources, the Hindu Times, New China News, etc. By using the more generic Google I can find all sorts of sources including thoroughly paranoid conspiracies about ANYTHING.

With so many sources, how can one determine which is the most factual? Truthful? As with any event, there are probably multiple competing facts and an elusive truth. Was it better when we 3 TV networks and a dozen major national newspapers to tell us the news? No question in my mind that the current richness of information is far, far preferable.

B

Internet, scary?? LMAO!

If you think this........you're not tuned-into the right sources. Blogs are completely free of the B.S.

Would suggest you do some research, before making ridiculous statements against a 100% FREE Internet........

__________________
'06 E320 CDI
'17 Corvette Stingray Vert

Most "blogs" are mostly B.S. As stated before, anybody can sit at a keyboard and espouse and pontificate . . . where's the reporting, the fact checking, the verification in the blogosphere?

A free internet? Unless someone on the 'net has harnessed the energy of nuclear fusion, then there will always be bills to pay. It's just that some believe that stealing, copyright violation or other methods are justified by a new communication medium. The corruption of Wikipedia is a nice little example of "free" as an economic model.

I'll continue to do research, but only if you promise to start as well.

Yes.

It seems that much of what appears to be news reporting is really entertainment. Confusion about this would seem to be one of the biggest problems. I don't know if this is anything NEW, though.

__________________
" We have nothing to fear but the main stream media itself . . . ."- Adapted from Franklin D Roosevelt for the 21st century

OBK #55

1998 Lincoln Continental - Sold
Max 1984 300TD 285,000 miles - Sold
The Dee8gonator 1987 560SEC 196,000 miles - Sold
Orgasmatron - 2006 CLS500 90,000 miles
2002 C320 Wagon 122,000 miles
2016 AMG GTS 12,000 miles

News is entertainment for some. Talk is cheap, actions speak louder thatn words, whether they be written or spoken. Coming out of these pearly whites, that was rather profound.

__________________
"It's normal for these things to empty your wallet and break your heart in the process."
2012 SLK 350
1987 420 SEL