More Right Wing MSM?

[large]

In an editorial in the Chieftain the other day, Mike Rosen, a moderator on a Right Side Radio Show and a writer of Editorials had issue about Dan Rather's replacement. He maintained that CBS needed to pick a "Right Wing Conservative" Anchor for their News Team.

While the CBS News People have decidedly been pretty far to the Left for years, and it has cost them creditability, as well as an audience . . Do we need another group of "Talking Heads" telling us what to think? From the Right this time? Isn't Fox enough?

I think not . . How about ONE News Team that actually reports the news as it happened? Let the viewers decide for themselves about the opinions . . No slanted editorials or inferrals, just straight news. No blaming the politicians because they don't agree with the Anchor's point of view . . Just tell us what happened, give us more information than a sound bite, we'll figure it out, thank you.

Do you suppose the public is smart enough to want something like that? Or should we continue to rely on the Bloggers for the truth?

[DSL]

Excellent points. The "news" programs on TV have changed dramatically over the years from factual reporting of newsworthy items to programs geared entirely toward ratings. And those ratings are driven by stories in which the so-called reporters often ARE the story.

However, we can still turn to PBS and a few other outlets for a significantly better presentation of newsworthy information. Sadly, the numbers speak for themselves: far fewer people watch PBS's News Hour than watch the news programs on CBS, NBC, or ABC.

Is the public "smart enough" to want more? I think so. But "the public" tends to be a bit lazy when it comes to learning more about politics, world events, the economy, the environment, etc. Watching Katie Curic interview the family of someone who has just died to see if she can get them to break down on camera is apparently much more entertaining for many.

[large]

PBS has, over the years, become a venting arena for the dis-satisfied left, clear out as far as "Churchhill" types, who editorilize far worse than Peter Jennings of ABC News Fame. Very little "Here's what happened" and a whole lot of "It's the Republican's Fault" . . . It just can't be the Republican's fault all the time . .

This is what I'm referring to . . You have the Left, mostly Main Stream Media; PBS, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC>>>>then Fox, in just about that order, left to right . . there is no middle . . no Media orginization who just tells us what happened in more than a sound bite and leaves the editorializing to the observer.

While I, personally lean a little more to the right, most of the time, (that tends to come with old age) I still don't necessarily agree with all that the current guys in charge do, but . . Let us make up our own minds.

And even our beloved Chieftain will lean over once in a while and take sides . . without necessarily looking at both sides first . . The current imbroglio about the Wal Mart Warehouse was at first reported to be a "Blemish turning to Cancer" as reported by Loretta Sword, one of the paper's finest. It was all about the "Huge Number of Pueblo West Residents against the Wal Mart Distributorship" . . When no such number existed. Of course, this stance was allowed to happen because of lazy editors, not politics. Once the paper's staff looked beyond the cloud of smoke raised by the objectors, it saw the handwriting on the wall . . Something Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and a lot of other "Anchors" in the MSM has never seen, and to this day fail to recognize.

Learning about and reporting both sides of the story with equal zest takes twice the work . . I guess that's why we get the news we get!

[Lexi]

Is the public "smart enough" to want more? I think so. But "the public" tends to be a bit lazy when it comes to learning more about politics, world events, the economy, the environment, etc. Watching Katie Curic interview the family of someone who has just died to see if she can get them to break down on camera is apparently much more entertaining for many.

I couldn't agree with you more, DSL. However, I must say that in today's day and age, the general public doesn't know how to learn more about politics and world events, as we rely on everyone else to find out those things for us. Thus, we look to newspapers and other media.

We read a headline and figure we have the whole story, we don't even know how to vote anymore. Ask 20 people what a caucus is -- how many out of that 20 actually know? And, out of those who do know, how many actually participate?

Not only do we not know important things, we don't participate in the process of running this country.

And, so, we sit here shrugging and wondering what's become of this country, why things are not the way they should be. :roll: