Donaldson: Network News Dead

Status
Not open for further replies.

Desertdog

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,980
Location
Ridgecrest Ca
It died a long time ago at my house. I find much more news on the internet than TV. Dd


Donaldson: Network News Dead
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/CA526034.html


By Bill McConnell -- Broadcasting & Cable, 4/19/2005 3:06:00 PM

Former ABC News reporter/anchor Sam Donaldson is ready to say the last rites for network news because it will soon lose its dominant position as Americans' primary source of news. "I think it's dead. Sorry," he said during a breakfast panel Tuesday at the National Association of Broadcasters' convention in Las Vegas. "The monster anchors are through."

Even though 30 million viewers still turn to networks news each night and garner ratings well above CNN and Fox News, networks news operations long ago lost their role as the sources Americans rely on during time of major breaking news, said Donaldson


"God forbid, if someone shot the President, which network would you turn to? It will be cable, the Internet--something other than General Hospital being interrupted."

Increasingly, viewers will continue turning to alternative sources for everyday news as well, he said.

Donaldson was joined on the panel by CNN political analyst Jeff Greenfield and CBS Sunday Morning's Charles Osgood., both of whom were less pessimistic about network news' future.

"If it's dying, it's dying a very slow death," Greenfield said. Although the network news monopoly was "smashed" by cable, broadcast news will redefine itself, thought he didn't yet know how.

Osgood said the network news can remain competitive with other platforms but must be constantly reevaluated to remain competitive--a fact that makes him glad he's at the tail end of his career rather than the beginning. "It used to be when we wanted to make a show more appealing to more people, the first thing we did was design a new set."

During their talk the three reporters came out in favor of a federal shield law that would allow journalists to protect the identity of their sources without threat of jail.

Donaldson, however, said journalists shouldn't have blanket protection when lives are at stake, but didn't know how to draft a law that would balance the need to ensure that journalists can protect whistle blowers but won't impede legal investigations.

The three also agreed that that Internet bloggers have had a generally positive impact on news because mainstream reporters are forced to better verify their information and pare opinions out of their work or face he wrath of scrutinizing critics.
 
Once upon a time, all books were hand-copied by scribes. Along came the printing press.

Once upon a time, the television networks had a monopoly on news. Along came the internet.

Now, for $64,000, what comes after the internet?
 
Megabandwidth memory chips imbedded in your mastoid bone at birth.

You can have real time point-to-multipoint communication with anyone willing to accept your chip code. You will probably be able to hear what they are hearing also.

Not only will you be able to call some one and communicate sub-vocally, but you'll be able to subscribe to lectures, on-the-spot reporting, and hear recorded messages from pundits and the like.

The chip will have enough memory to store a library of information that can be recalled instantly. You can record what ever you want to chip memory realtime. Eventually the chips will be wired into your vision so you can either watch 'video' or manipulate data graphically.

The world will be devided between those who are wired and those who are not.

Resistance is futile.
 
Even though 30 million viewers still turn to networks news each night and garner ratings well above CNN and Fox News, networks news operations long ago lost their role as the sources Americans rely on during time of major breaking news, said Donaldson
Why would anyone "rely" on a news source that not only slants, but outright fabricates the "news" they offer? Perhaps if the networks would get back to REPORTING rather than fabricating, they might regain a semblance of credibility and legitimacy.
 
Hawkmoon

They would not only have to get back to reporting the news, but make sure both sides of the story is told instead of just the one they want heard. Then report both sides without any slant. Fat chance! :fire:
 
His statement is premature. The MSM is owned by the left, as long as they have power, it can still be used to sway people's thoughts and emotions the way they want.

Example: the witchhunt against Tom Delay. Objectively, he's done nothing wrong, even if he did all those things he's been accused of, none of it is illegal, or even unusual.

But the left, spinning it through the MSM, has managed to make it into a big deal, smearing Delay, putting him on the defensive, and causing dissention within the republican ranks.

That's power, the power to propagandize and sidetrack the debate in your favor, even in a dishonest way.
 
Theres no reason why the shows should die - over here, we not only have the main bulletins at six and ten o'clock, we also have various programmes produced by the news-arms of BBC, ITV and Channel Four (shows like Panorama), all of which are miles better than the various "rolling news" networks, which are almost totally useless unless something is actually happening.

To an extent, BBC News 24 has an advantage here because a great deal of their late-night and early morning programming is made up of prerecorded interviews on subjects of concern of the past month and a bit, so you get half-hour and hour long interviews with people who know a great deal about the subject at hand, intelligent questioning and the whole of an interview that you know is condensed into a paragraph under normal circumstances; however the daytime output is rubbish, and sadly the Government wants to "sex up" (ie: make more idiot-friendly) the various BBC channels, so this will inevitably die a death.
 
How anyone can endure 30 to 60 minutes of network news is beyond me. They report very little of any relavance to your life. Yes, it's terrible that someone you didn't know was shot by someone else that you didn't know in a city that you never go to, but I really don't care. The fact the sport results are reported for about 1/4 of the news broadcast is quite sad. I know that people are interested, but it's not news. I like the weather. It lets me know if it'll rain tomorrow so I shouldn't bother washing the car, but I hate sitting through 25 minutes of useless drivel to find it out.

On the Internet, I can find out the weather, major news, and stockmarket updates in about 5 minutes and cross-check anything that doesn't seem right. If I'm in a rush and don't have 25 minutes, I can get the weather in 2.

I haven't watched network news since I was 17.
 
If they can give you a preview of what the news will be hours before the news program airs, how is it considered NEWS??

lpl/nc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top