The News: How much is sensationalism?

I know a TV station has to make a buck, but it sure seems like they are fighting for viewership with...stupid shit. I mean...sending out a crew in a Mad Max assault vehicle looking for (and hopefully finding) tornadoes, hail...?

All those phone videos they get from people when shit happens...I'd probably copywrite it and sell it to the highest bidder...

Guess I'm getting old...IDK...seems like you got the straight scoop from Huntley, Brinkley and Cronkite back in the day...

Would your life be in disarray if Fox News vanished?

Most of it is sensationalized. I mean, seriously. Who wants to hear about world peace these days?

We'd rather watch something get blown up on TV or hear about a country starting war with another country. Just, drama.

I guess it's much more entertaining.

All in all, I don't even watch the news too much anymore because there always seems to be more negativity shown than positivity.

Oh, and then there's always this:

I find it ridiculous that Texas news stations lead off the newscast with a weather report most of the time.. "it might rain 4 days from now"! "the sun came out today"! "better bundle up, it's going to be COLD (45 is frigid to them)"!

a chance of sleet warrants all-day coverage.. but it's only considered hot if temps push 100 degrees. if I ran a local news station, I would give the weather folks 3 months off, July-September.. what else is there to say, except hot and dry?

When I used to travel to Los Angeles the only traffic jams I encountered were the rubber neckers cell phone videoing all the traffic stops.

Crime is at historic lows, but if you were just to watch local news (or some national news shows), you would never know. We are safer than we ever have been both at home and abroad, but the news hypes beheading in remote parts of the world as if they happened down the block, half way to the 7-11. What crime is left and terrorism are news, sure. But there is a total lack of proportionality in the coverage. And those with ideological or profit driven agendas flog all the wrong stories for their own selfish ends. There really is no hard news these days. Even respectable papers like the New York Times, The Time of London, and The Guardian are full of infotainment crap. Standards are as low as they have been in my lifetime. Very discouraging.

Love it when a news anchor gets in to a story and says: "We want to warn you; this video we are about to show is very graphic and may be disturbing to some of our viewers..."
Just what a 12-yr. old wants to see...

Many years ago, PBS did an hour-long documentary about the meat-producing industry. It showed, from start to finish, how cattle were raised, brought to the slaughterhouse, processed and finally the butcher placing the neatly-wrapped ribeye steaks on the grocery shelves.

The interesting thing...not one human voice spoke at any time. No narration. No interpretation. No commentary. The only sounds were that of the cattle, the processing plants, etc.

It was left up to the viewers to form their own opinions and observations without some talking head trying to ram theirs down your throat.

Sometimes I wonder if the news is fixed, rigged, - you know, fake like "rasslin," lol. Perhaps Cooper, Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity and such are assigned their left wing, right wing or moderate personas and corresponding networks.

Hell, Hannity might be a dope smoking commie who is just more skilled as an actor in the role he is playing on Fox. Cooper may be a straight as an arrow ECCIE fucktard getting more pussy than any of us. After all, sensationalism sells - especially to paranoids like me.

Sometimes I wonder if the news is fixed, rigged, - you know, fake like "rasslin," lol. Perhaps Cooper, Maddow, O'Reilly, Hannity and such are assigned their left wing, right wing or moderate personas and corresponding networks.

Hell, Hannity might be a dope smoking commie who is just more skilled as an actor in the role he is playing on Fox. Cooper may be a straight as an arrow ECCIE fucktard getting more pussy than any of us. After all, sensationalism sells - especially to paranoids like me. Originally Posted by Fawlty

Oh no!!! You watch Fox News? Say it ain't so, lol...
Not sure which is more entertaining: Fox News or John Stewart's commentary on it...

To be a "successful journalist" don't you have to have two majors? Journalism and Acting?

There's quality and educational stuff out there. NPR isn't bad most of the time, what I like about them is that they will spend longer on a topic going more deeply into it even if it is still pretty much "on the surface". Vox.com is very good, interesting stories that try and cut the top news of the day in different ways.

I know this will strike some people the wrong way, but John Oliver on HBO is fantastic. He's funny but oddly substantive. Overall he has a very good take on things with a comedic package to help the medicine go down a little.

I have stopped watching the news for about 2 years.
I will listen to 1080 during my commute and read Drudge Report at lunch.
I feel I gave a good idea of what is going on with the things that pertain to me.

Local TV is drama.....I get that here.

I'm wondering just how in-depth the local news media will pursue the cartoon drawing contest in Garland. Like:
Why stage this kind of event?
What is the background of the organizers?
Who funded the drawing first prize?
Where did the money for the prize and leasing the place come from?
Are they thinking of proceeding with another contest like this?
Did the attendees understand the risks involved?

I'm going to miss "Bullshit Mountain" when Stewart is gone . . . sort of summed it all up for me.

NPR and BBC and PBS including NewsHour and Frontline

This is too fucking funny; Islamic terrorists launched a terrorist attack on a peaceful, lawful assembly, with the sole intention of mass killing, and you are looking for incrimination of the event sponsors and attendees.

You are a left wing loon.

I'm wondering just how in-depth the local news media will pursue the cartoon drawing contest in Garland. Like:
Why stage this kind of event?
What is the background of the organizers?
Who funded the drawing first prize?
Where did the money for the prize and leasing the place come from?
Are they thinking of proceeding with another contest like this?
Did the attendees understand the risks involved? Originally Posted by Prolongus

I'm wondering just how in-depth the local news media will pursue the cartoon drawing contest in Garland. Like:
Why stage this kind of event?
What is the background of the organizers?
Who funded the drawing first prize?
Where did the money for the prize and leasing the place come from?
Are they thinking of proceeding with another contest like this?
Did the attendees understand the risks involved? Originally Posted by Prolongus

This is too fucking funny; Islamic terrorists launched a terrorist attack on a peaceful, lawful assembly, with the sole intention of mass killing, and you are looking for incrimination of the event sponsors and attendees.

You are a left wing loon. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Whirlaway, from the questions posed by Prolongus I don't find a hint that he is incriminating the sponsors and attendees. Instead, I gather that he may be questioning the judgement of the organizers in staging this event and possibly the motives in them doing so.

I'm far from a left wing loon, but I question the wisdom of the sponsors. Just because an event is a peaceful lawful assembly, it does not follow that it is prudent to stage the event. Did they not see that this event might have provoked violence and invited a terrorist attack? It is fortunate that innocent people weren't killed.

I'm not assigning blame, and I'm not loosing any sleep over two terrorists being killed, but excercising liberty in artistic expression needs to be balanced with a concern for public safety; we dodged a bullet here. Let's not live in fear but let us learn from this. I expect caution will be excercised in decisions about having such future events.