OAN says “no widespread voter fraud” after settling defamation suit.
- Thread starter CrowsofFritz
- Start date
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
And nobody has answered the question. What is the first goal of news agencies?
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
I don’t know how old you are, but even among the 65+, only a little over half get their news from TV. Younger audiences get their news digitally and from select websites that fit their predispositions. The times they are a changin‘.
Trust in Media 2022: Where Americans get their news and who they trust for information | YouGov
The most politically polarizing media outlet is CNN. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats (66%) rate CNN as trustworthy, compared to 11% of Republicans, a 55-point difference, larger than for any other outlet.
today.yougov.com
60's guy
Well-known member
in other words, you are a complete failure at your new job as a news producer because you're scared shitless at the prospect of losing your new job at a local insignificant TV station.
There was brief moment in time when I did think that you're reasonably minded.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
No, it’s because we’re a respectable newsroom that doesn’t peddle clearly partisan buffoonery.
If you think 2000 mules is respectable, then I can say the same to you. I also learned you believe the moon landings were faked and weren’t kidding like brassplayer was. Why should I care what you think about me?
WWLaidback
Well-known member
Most corporations (including media) have their mission/vision goals stated.
I think that depends on which one you work for, the type of platform they operate, and their listening audience.
Here's a little cross-section:
NBCUniversal Mission Statement 2022 | NBCUniversal Mission & Vision Analysis
NBCUniversal mission and vision statements help define what the company is working towards and how it remains to be one of the most successful companies in the world. Read on for a breakdown of the company's mission and vision statements and its core values.
mission-statement.com
NBCUniversal Mission and Vision Statements Analysis
NBCUniversal mission statement is “to be the premier content provider for television and digital platforms, spanning all television.”
Google Sites: Sign-in
Access Google Sites with a personal Google account or Google Workspace account (for business use).
sites.google.com
CBS Mission Statement
The Company's principal strategy is to create and acquire content that is widely accepted by audiences, and generate both advertising and non-advertising revenues from the distribution of this content on multiple media platforms and to various geographic locations.
CNN Mission Statement 2024 | CNN Mission & Vision Analysis
CNN mission and vision statements help define what the company is working towards and how it remains to be one of the most successful companies in the world. Read on for a breakdown of the company's mission and vision statements and its core values.
mission-statement.com
CNN (Cable News Network) Mission and Vision Statements Analysis
CNN mission statement is “to inform, engage and empower the world.” The statement emphasizes on the ways that it finds convenient to achieve its core purpose of empowering the people through information.
New York Times (NYT) Mission and Vision Statements Analysis
New York Times mission statement is “we seek the truth and help people understand the world.”I must say the NYT waited much too long on the Hunter Biden laptop.
Much much too long.
No nerves damaged
We live in an Information Age.
Yes there are news acquisition avenues galore .
Just like your band analogy.
However even in this Information Age it’s harder because one has to dig. Many aren’t able, willing, or savvy enough to put in the time. Many have no idea of what an RSS feed is. Tons of info out there.
So they turn on the TV, and have their favorite ‘newscaster’ fill them in on the world around them.
But all the FCC licensed News outlets consider themselves to be the ‘authorities’ on news.
There is also an incredible effort to censor ‘independent’ news sources.
Yet there are some podcasters that have a bigger audience than CNN.
It’s a new world out there for sure.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Well, Laidback you’re giving a good answer for the second goal. Mission statements are a formal expression of the values a company holds but that’s not the first goal of media.
Come on guys. You’re all saying it yourself. Corporations.
What does Wal-Mart do? Of course you can say “they serve the public by offering a fuck ton of goods for cheap,” but that’s not their first goal.
What‘s Wal-Mart’s first goal? MONEY. IT WANTS TO MAKE MONEY.
If we take out public broadcasting, all news organizations’ first goal is to make money.
Come on guys. You’re all saying it yourself. Corporations.
What does Wal-Mart do? Of course you can say “they serve the public by offering a fuck ton of goods for cheap,” but that’s not their first goal.
What‘s Wal-Mart’s first goal? MONEY. IT WANTS TO MAKE MONEY.
If we take out public broadcasting, all news organizations’ first goal is to make money.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Hey, we agree on something! I don’t very much care for CNN.No nerves damaged
We live in an Information Age.
Yes there are news acquisition avenues galore .
Just like your band analogy.
However even in this Information Age it’s harder because one has to dig. Many aren’t able, willing, or savvy enough to put in the time. Many have no idea of what an RSS feed is. Tons of info out there.
So they turn on the TV, and have their favorite ‘newscaster’ fill them in on the world around them.
But all the FCC licensed News outlets consider themselves to be the ‘authorities’ on news.
There is also an incredible effort to censor ‘independent’ news sources.
Yet there are some podcasters that have a bigger audience than CNN.
It’s a new world out there for sure.
I have a very close freind who works for one of the very biggest media corporations. They might even own your station.
He’s been in TV all his life and currently holds a position high up the food chain.
He says all this mission statement stuff is bullshit.
Primary goal is two things.
Number 1, MAKE MONEY
Number 2, keep the shareholders happy. ( see number one)
That’s it. That’s the golden rule.
Nothing else matters.
He’s been in TV all his life and currently holds a position high up the food chain.
He says all this mission statement stuff is bullshit.
Primary goal is two things.
Number 1, MAKE MONEY
Number 2, keep the shareholders happy. ( see number one)
That’s it. That’s the golden rule.
Nothing else matters.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
I can’t say the name here. But....... here in the US they are very very woke.
The woke crowd thinks they are so virtuous.
Yet overseas in countries that do not share our witness, the programming is completely different. Zero woke.
Even these countries that many would consider homophobic, are nothing more than a market, and the product presented to them is in line with their values.
Again it comes back to money.
The woke crowd thinks they are so virtuous.
Yet overseas in countries that do not share our witness, the programming is completely different. Zero woke.
Even these countries that many would consider homophobic, are nothing more than a market, and the product presented to them is in line with their values.
Again it comes back to money.
60's guy
Well-known member
It's rather obvious that you are closed minded as to your perception of myself and others.
From what I've read recently you are going to do well at your new job for as long as you don't say anything to make anyone think that you were a bad hire.
Conform or be gone.
60's guy
Well-known member
The first goal of current day news agencies has become purely political in nature.
NPR has lost objectivity and yet NPR remains funded by taxpayer dollars.
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
......anyway,
I really challenge the notion that one can’t have personal biases and set them aside when writing a news story. You all have no idea how laughably easy it is to drift closer to the center and write only the facts.
Let’s take something that isn’t political: Lord of the Rings. Let’s take the final moments of the Battle of Minas Tirith. For the purposes of this exercise, let’s assume we’re not a race of elves, humans, or dwarves. We’re a neutral race.
Headline: Human Calvary Valiantly Crushes The Orc Army.
Biased. Who am I to say what’s valiant? And crushes? That’s subjective. And also click-baity. A better headline would be this: Human Calvary Charges Into Orc Army.
Just a fact. That’s what happened. Now for two stories with different slants.
”As the battle deciding the fate of Minath Tirith raged on, a large group of heroic calvary men saved the day by charging into the Dark Lord’s army, effectively crippling them. A few moments after, a terrifying ghostly army of the dead plowed into the orcs with a flank, an attack which caused the orc army to run back to Mordor, whimpering in defeat.”
There’s some very questionable adjectives and verbs in there that are just unnecessary, and it gives the impression that the writer is taking the side of the human race. Here’s a better way to write the story:
”Some time after the Orc army attacked the city of Minas Tirith, a human calvary appeared and charged into the Orc army. This attack led to a significant loss of soldiers for the Dark Lord’s army. Approximately 34 minutes later, an army of the dead appeared and also attacked the orc army on the opposite side. Twenty minutes after the army of the dead attacked, the orcs retreated.”
Here’s the main difference: the reader can decide for themselves all those adjectives and causes.
Why are the calvary heroic? That’s a slant.
The reader can decide if it’s heroic or not. Saved the day? It MAY be true. Or the humans holding the city could have held off the orcs until the orcs gave up or something. We wont know because that’s an alternate timeline that didn‘t occur. “Crippling” the orc army? Subjective. The orcs still had a massive army some time later in the timeline. We don’t know that they were crippled. Best to just omit that all together. Better to write accurate times than “a few moments” as if youre trying to keep the reader on the edge of their seat. Do we know that the attack from the army of the undead caused the orcs to retreat? No. It’s possible, and maybe even very likely that they did. But we don’t know 100% and thus, we cannot say that it was what caused the Orcs to retreat. Just say, “20 minutes after the army of the dead began their attack, the orcs retreated.” The reader should infer that the calvary charge and the the undead’s attack was what caused the orcs to retreat. I don’t need to say anything for the reader except the facts. Okay, I went a little overboard when I said “whimpering,” but it was to illustrate a point. If you see superfluous adjectives and verbs with images that show the parties in a good or bad light, those are red flags.
I really challenge the notion that one can’t have personal biases and set them aside when writing a news story. You all have no idea how laughably easy it is to drift closer to the center and write only the facts.
Let’s take something that isn’t political: Lord of the Rings. Let’s take the final moments of the Battle of Minas Tirith. For the purposes of this exercise, let’s assume we’re not a race of elves, humans, or dwarves. We’re a neutral race.
Headline: Human Calvary Valiantly Crushes The Orc Army.
Biased. Who am I to say what’s valiant? And crushes? That’s subjective. And also click-baity. A better headline would be this: Human Calvary Charges Into Orc Army.
Just a fact. That’s what happened. Now for two stories with different slants.
”As the battle deciding the fate of Minath Tirith raged on, a large group of heroic calvary men saved the day by charging into the Dark Lord’s army, effectively crippling them. A few moments after, a terrifying ghostly army of the dead plowed into the orcs with a flank, an attack which caused the orc army to run back to Mordor, whimpering in defeat.”
There’s some very questionable adjectives and verbs in there that are just unnecessary, and it gives the impression that the writer is taking the side of the human race. Here’s a better way to write the story:
”Some time after the Orc army attacked the city of Minas Tirith, a human calvary appeared and charged into the Orc army. This attack led to a significant loss of soldiers for the Dark Lord’s army. Approximately 34 minutes later, an army of the dead appeared and also attacked the orc army on the opposite side. Twenty minutes after the army of the dead attacked, the orcs retreated.”
Here’s the main difference: the reader can decide for themselves all those adjectives and causes.
Why are the calvary heroic? That’s a slant.
The reader can decide if it’s heroic or not. Saved the day? It MAY be true. Or the humans holding the city could have held off the orcs until the orcs gave up or something. We wont know because that’s an alternate timeline that didn‘t occur. “Crippling” the orc army? Subjective. The orcs still had a massive army some time later in the timeline. We don’t know that they were crippled. Best to just omit that all together. Better to write accurate times than “a few moments” as if youre trying to keep the reader on the edge of their seat. Do we know that the attack from the army of the undead caused the orcs to retreat? No. It’s possible, and maybe even very likely that they did. But we don’t know 100% and thus, we cannot say that it was what caused the Orcs to retreat. Just say, “20 minutes after the army of the dead began their attack, the orcs retreated.” The reader should infer that the calvary charge and the the undead’s attack was what caused the orcs to retreat. I don’t need to say anything for the reader except the facts. Okay, I went a little overboard when I said “whimpering,” but it was to illustrate a point. If you see superfluous adjectives and verbs with images that show the parties in a good or bad light, those are red flags.
Ok that was a good little read and yes you’re right.
But the question here is, are you objective? Or do you just know how to be objective??
Let’s just use the broadcast media for example. The ‘TV news’
They’re not objective. Neither the left leaning nor the right.
Headlines are misleading, stories are embellished, out of context etc. In your lord of the rings analogy you proved you know what objective is. So I know you have the ability to tell when something isn’t objective.
Are you saying your station doesn’t do the same thing as the majors?
Do you find the MSM to be objective or not?
But the question here is, are you objective? Or do you just know how to be objective??
Let’s just use the broadcast media for example. The ‘TV news’
They’re not objective. Neither the left leaning nor the right.
Headlines are misleading, stories are embellished, out of context etc. In your lord of the rings analogy you proved you know what objective is. So I know you have the ability to tell when something isn’t objective.
Are you saying your station doesn’t do the same thing as the majors?
Do you find the MSM to be objective or not?
CrowsofFritz
Flamingo!
Well, I studied media bias my senior year thoroughly. If I were to talk about CBS, ABC, and NBC, I would say all three have a left leaning slant. How much? I don’t know, but I don’t think it’s extreme. According to the website Dave mentioned, even my news organization has a very slight left leaning slant. I suspect it comes from the state and national stories, because you can’t really fuck up the local and regional ones unless you’re a bad writer.
Am I objective? Hell no. But can I write in an objective manner? Yes, and it’s as easy for me as flipping a switch. It’s not so much the writing part that people who aim to be objective have trouble with. It’s the gatekeeping bias (one of the three main forms of bias). Gatekeeping bias is basically what you choose to run. If I continued to write about Democrat achievements, even if I described them all objectively, that’s gatekeeping the achievements if the Republicans.