Is Entertainment the New Motivation for Watching the News?

[Ivan Seeking]

"News" for entertainment

Over the last few years, a number of discussions have brought the following to light. While it is no secret that many or most alleged news agencies have discovered that entertainment is far more profitable than good reporting, what I didn't realize is that, based on my own interactions with people across the political spectrum, the motivations for watching the news have changed as well.

As I have stated many times, I am a PBS man. I watch other news reports, but when I want quality reporting and analysis, as I have almost every weeknight for over thirty years, I go to the best, PBS. When I recommend PBS to Fox or MSNBC fans, what do you think is the complaint that comes back every time? It's boring! A few stated [paraphrasing] that the PBS reporting was good, but it isn't fun. Well no sh't Sherlock! Compared to the trash that passes as reporting these days, the real news is boring! I can understand people who don't seek quality information, and those wanting belief confirmation, watching Fox or MSNBC, but I was shocked to find that even serious old-time political junkies have been sucked into the abyss.

It seems the cheese media has won the war. People now watch the news to be entertained, not to be informed.

[late edits]

 

[Panwasbipolar]

I get mad when reporters decide to throw in their opinion on what they're reporting.

I watch local, pbs and a few minutes of msnbc if they're not running some crappy rerun.

 

[WhoWee]

Due to a heavy travel schedule, I became a fan of Headline News (moving away from CNN) a few years ago. Then, with the run up to the 2008 election, the reports seemed more and more opinionated (might have started with Katrina on CNN) and I started watching Fox more than CNN or Headline. I still like the panel exchanges on Fox.

Something similar happened in the car listening to NPR and I've been scanning channels ever since.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Imo, NPR puts on way too much nonsense. While driving to California for family visits, I often listen to NPR. They put on some real nuts. At the least, they do a lot of fringe reporting.

I am glad to hang my hat on the PBS investigative reports, on Frontline. I can't say they've never screwed up, but the quality of the reporting is generally about as good as it gets.

Perhaps the biggest screwup for the PBS newshour was their rush to put Ponds and Fleishman at the top of the hour before their work was vetted. As usual, they reported the story accurately, but one was left thinking the world's energy problems had just been solved.

CNN Headline news is just news bubblegum. I do follow the reporting of Blitzer and King, on CNN, and I am a huge fan of David Gergen [chief political advisor on CNN] but I always look to PBS for confirmation or rejection, and most importantly, context, for any significant story.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Something else that I would toss in for consideration. IMO, no one with a life has the time to become an expert at anything in the news. We rely on our news agencies for context and fact finding. If you think you [generically] can learn enough about any story to void the need for good news agencies, you are just kidding yourself.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I haven't had tv service for nearly three years now. I get everything from either cnn.com or the news.google.com service.

 

[WhoWee]

CNN Headline news is just news bubblegum.QUOTE]
It is now. When I first started watching it was a place to grab the 10 minute version of the news day plus a decent weather report - for travel.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

For sure, when I want unbiased reporting, the first thing I think of is govt sponsored news.

 

[Al68]

For sure, when I want unbiased reporting, the first thing I think of is govt sponsored news.

LOL. Anyone who thinks PBS news is an unbiased source for information is really kidding themselves.

At a minimum, one needs to understand both sides of the issues to consider themselves informed. It's glaringly obvious that many of the posts here indicate a complete lack of understanding of (or grossly misrepresented version of) the other side, not an informed disagreement with the other side.

 

[Panwasbipolar]

As far as PBS goes I know it takes sponsors to run things, but considering the audience that tends to watch, I was a little perplexed when they started running Monsanto commercials.

 

[Mathnomalous]

Most of my "news" come from Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I know. Sad.

 

[Pengwuino]

This thread is boring. I'm going to a more exciting thread in the Fun and Games section.

Whoa, I think you're onto somtehing Ivan.

 

[waht]

Christopher Hitchens said that he gets news directly from his network of journalists, but he checks the New York Times just to find out what the public opinion is.

 

[humanino]

Compared to the trash that passes as reporting these days, the real news is boring!

The way I see it, trash opinions are much more boring than real journalism.


edit
I do not know Sen. Jay Rockefeller very much. I just thought the quotation in this video is appropriate. I really think misinformation undermines politics very deeply and seriously in the US. It is quite worrying that some people think trash opinions is more "entertaining" than real journalism. The two are not supposed to be compared to one another in the first place. It's like saying "I prefer chocolate over oxygen".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

LOL. Anyone who thinks PBS news is an unbiased source for information is really kidding themselves.

Also to Jimmy, I have a published study that says otherwise. While it is true that the right has falsely accused PBS of biased reporting, the evidence suggests otherwise.

The most centrist media outlets were PBS News Hour, CNN's Newsnight, and ABC's Good Morning America; among print outlets, USA Today was closest to the center.

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/003355305775097542

As noted by the authors of the paper cited, PBS anchors are most often selected to moderate debates in Presidential elections. Also, in the last election cycle - 2008 - we saw Wolf Blitzer moderate a debate.

PBS is in fact a shining example of publically-funded programming, most of which comes from donations, not the government.

PBS receives about 10 percent of its funding from the government

http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/news_features/dont_quote_me/multi-page/documents/04731986.asp

Why then do our friends on the right always complain about a government news agency? It is 90% public in the most democratic sense of the word.

Also, I just happened to spot this reference:

ARLINGTON, VA, March 22, 2007—For the fourth consecutive year, a GfK Roper Public Affairs & Media poll shows Americans consider PBS the nation's most trusted institution among nationally known organizations. In this latest study, PBS was elevated to the #1 value for tax dollars, tying with military defense. The non-partisan, international research company released the comprehensive results from its national opinion survey, which was conducted to gauge the attitudes of Americans towards PBS and other major national institutions, including courts of law and commercial broadcast television networks.

According to 1,000 randomly-selected participants from across the country, PBS’ news and public affairs series are the most trustworthy among all networks, and the most fair and balanced programs available to Americans today..

http://www.pbs.org/aboutpbs/news/20070322_roperpoll.html

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The way I see it, trash opinions are much more boring than real journalism.


edit
I do not know Sen. Jay Rockefeller very much. I just thought the quotation in this video is appropriate. I really think misinformation undermines politics very deeply and seriously in the US. It is quite worrying that some people think trash opinions is more "entertaining" than real journalism. The two are not supposed to be compared to one another in the first place. It's like saying "I prefer chocolate over oxygen".

The problem is that the misinformation media appeals to primal instincts. It gets your blood boiling and your mind racing. It scares you by threatening your security. It makes you hateful by drawing a line in the sand between them and us. It gives us many names for "them". It allows for quick and easy solutions make people feel how they want to feel, but that ignore many of the most significant issues. I would equate it most closely to a hybrid of a bar fight, a horror film, and an evangelist.

When I said boring, I meant that it wasn't exciting in this sense. Quality news brings things back to Earth and forces us to face the truly complex nature of our problems. As GWB might say, it makes things hard.

 

[Al68]

Also to Jimmy, I have a published study that says otherwise. While it is true that the right has falsely accused PBS of biased reporting, the evidence suggests otherwise.

LOL. Published study, huh? Well, if it's published, it must be objectively true! :uhh:

I don't know which study you're referring to, but the ones I've seen ignore the kind of bias referred to by the "right". If yours doesn't, maybe you can provide a link to it?

 

[humanino]

When I said boring, I meant that it wasn't exciting in this sense. Quality news brings things back to Earth and forces us to face the truly complex nature of our problems. As GWB might say, it makes things hard.

That was my point of view as a scientist : real science is actually more exciting than science-fiction, because it's real !

 

[humanino]

the ones I've seen

Ivan provided his study. You just keep posting "LOL". That is not convincing. Why don't you provide your references instead, since you have "seen them" ?

 

[Al68]

Ivan provided his study.

The study provided by Ivan claimed PBS was more "centrist" than other news sources, but still had a "liberal bias". Just less so than the "strong liberal bias" that the other sources had on average. I never disputed the results of that study.

You just keep posting "LOL". That is not convincing.

It's not intended to be. It's intended to indicate that I find something humorous.

Why don't you provide your references instead, since you have "seen them" ?

No thanks, I'll use Ivan's. My point was that I have not seen a study that says what Ivan claimed.

Actually, I assumed that Ivan was referring to a different, unprovided, study when he said he had one that "says otherwise", ie that PBS was an unbiased source of information. I didn't think he was referring to the earlier referenced study that clearly does not support that claim.

 

[CAC1001]

Hmm...well I watch Fox News, CNN, read Politico, read columinists on both ends of the spectrum, check various blogs, check various publications, and so forth.

 

[humanino]

Ivan provided a study showing that PBS had the least bias compared to all other major networks. Although "to the left" it was there by 5.7 points, which is twice less than for instance Fox news scoring 10.4 points "to the right". There is no such thing as "unbiased". The point is to find a source which is the least biased.

 

[turbo]

LOL. Anyone who thinks PBS news is an unbiased source for information is really kidding themselves.

At a minimum, one needs to understand both sides of the issues to consider themselves informed. It's glaringly obvious that many of the posts here indicate a complete lack of understanding of (or grossly misrepresented version of) the other side, not an informed disagreement with the other side.

(bolding mine)

The most important thing to understand is that there are NOT 2 sides to every story. Nothing in the news is so simple that it can be broken down into a dichotomy. This is one of the failures of most news programs, especially panel-shows where apologists for the two major political parties are invited on the show, as a show of "balance". Unfortunately, most people in the US seem to have bought into the dichotomy notion, and the news outlets (real news or infotainment) are glad to serve it up. It's a lot easier and cheaper than actually researching and reporting on the issues.

 

[Pattonias]

To me, the best, unbiased, news you can get is found in reports at the top of the hour on the radio. If they have only 10 minutes to cover all the news in the world they don't have enough time to put too much spin. They can only control what they report and don't.

On the other hand, if the take the "grain of salt" when listening to your news and remain skeptical you can generally glean what you need from your news and shrug off the opinion of the sensationalist.

 

[Al68]

The most important thing to understand is that there are NOT 2 sides to every story. Nothing in the news is so simple that it can be broken down into a dichotomy.

I agree with this completely, each issue is more complicated than having just two sides. Even when an issue can be divided into two major sides, neither is monolithic.

 

[Al68]

Ivan provided a study showing that PBS had the least bias compared to all other major networks... There is no such thing as "unbiased".

Exactly. That's why I assumed Ivan was referring to a different study.

The point is to find a source which is the least biased.

Or to recognize the bias. The real problem is isn't just the bias itself, it's the fact that it goes unrecognized by so many.

 

[turbo]

I agree with this completely, each issue is more complicated than having just two sides. Even when an issue can be divided into two major sides, neither is monolithic.

Then please team up! Most of the initiatives that the GOP wants to jump on are not "conservative" and most of the initiatives that the Dems want to pursue are not "liberal". We are not living in a real world. We are stuck in a world in which in which the major players are plying the media and playing the dichotomy game while US voters are falling into the either-or trap.

The difference between GOP and Dem is no larger than the difference between TIME and Newsweek or Coke and Pepsi. All the pump is PR. I know it, and I think you know it, too. At some point, we have to strip out the creeps and elect actual representatives.

 

[Al68]

Then please team up! Most of the initiatives that the GOP wants to jump on are not "conservative" and most of the initiatives that the Dems want to pursue are not "liberal".

The GOP initiatives are not very "conservative". But your objections to them seem to be that they are too "radically" to the right, too little regulation, too little "taxing the rich", etc.

You object to the GOP "going too far", while I object to them not going far enough. That doesn't exactly put us on the same team.

 

[WhoWee]

That was my point of view as a scientist : real science is actually more exciting than science-fiction, because it's real !

This doesn't have anything to do with the media's reporting on global warming - does it?

 

[OmCheeto]

The most important thing to understand is that there are NOT 2 sides to every story. Nothing in the news is so simple that it can be broken down into a dichotomy. This is one of the failures of most news programs, especially panel-shows where apologists for the two major political parties are invited on the show, as a show of "balance". Unfortunately, most people in the US seem to have bought into the dichotomy notion, and the news outlets (real news or infotainment) are glad to serve it up. It's a lot easier and cheaper than actually researching and reporting on the issues.

I don't know if it's so much that they are brought into the dichotomy, as much as that is the way some people choose to view reality. I once had someone tell me, after butting heads for many years; "I see things in black and white. You see things in shades of grey."

It was quite the revelation, and I understood better after knowing this, why we could seldom agree on a course of action. I now know to throw out all but two variables when coordinating with this person. It has made life much simpler.

To address the polling question; I, like our fearless leader, have been without cable for quite some time, so I go to the best place on the planet to get my news, and polling information:

Unfortunately, I could not find a poll regarding any other news agencies.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't know if it's so much that they are brought into the dichotomy, as much as that is the way some people choose to view reality. I once had someone tell me, after butting heads for many years; "I see things in black and white. You see things in shades of grey."

It was quite the revelation, and I understood better after knowing this, why we could seldom agree on a course of action. I now know to throw out all but two variables when coordinating with this person. It has made life much simpler.

To address the polling question; I, like our fearless leader, have been without cable for quite some time, so I go to the best place on the planet to get my news, and polling information:

Unfortunately, I could not find a poll regarding any other news agencies.

Too bad there wasn't one more question on the poll - something along the lines of: Have you ever watched Fox News?

 

[CRGreathouse]

Too bad there wasn't one more question on the poll - something along the lines of: Have you ever watched Fox News?

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

 

[OmCheeto]

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

Links people! Links!

I watched Fox News in the distant past. What a cesspool of **;)*.

No wonder I canceled my cable.

 

[WhoWee]

I posted that poll. Tell me what you think.

Absolutely, I think it's important to qualify respondents to any poll. If someone is going to express an opinion of this nature, then a few more questions might be appropriate.

1.) How often do you watch Fox News? ____ times per month
2.) How long have you watched Fox News? ____months
3.) List other networks watched _____. _____, ____
4.) Network watched most frequently? ________
5.) What is your primary sources of news? ________, _______, _______
6.) Do you primarily watch Fox News broadcasts, opinion segments, or panel discussions? ___

I think these type questions would make the poll more fair and balanced.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Links people! Links!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=451857

It's a simple combinatorial poll based on the perceived bias of Fox and the frequency of viewing.