I spent the weekend with an old friend who just happens to be a Republican

[grumpyduck]

He was helping me out with a project, and we mostly avoided talking politics, but it turns out we both agreed on something.

We both miss the days of Cronkite, Huntley-Brinkley, and other newscasters who just gave you the news and let you make up your own mind, when there weren't so many talking heads making fortunes by telling viewers what they want to hear so they come back to hear more of it and watch all those commercials that are paying for it. And we miss the days when people had the common sense to be able to tell news from opinion.

I just find it so interesting that so many people seem to feel that they have to watch stuff that makes them angry, like, "okay, I've had a hard day at work and I'm home now, so it's time for my 7:00 anger session so I can get more pissed off at the other party."

Ever since, many years ago, when a Fox news director told me that, quote, a news program is just an excuse to bring an audience to an advertiser, unquote, I've had a very cynical view of the whole thing.

[maxsolomon]

1. the good old days you're pining for?

those were the days that prompted roger ailes to start fox news with Murdoch's money. the truth has a well-known liberal bias.

[MineralMan]

2. Try watching the news on ABC, NBC, or CBS

in the morning or evening. Just try it. It's still a lot like the old-time news, without all the punditry.

All three networks do an hour of news in the morning and a half hour in the 5-6 PM hour. Local news is also on, doing much the same thing for your local area, both in the morning, dinner hour and at 10 or 11 PM.

I grew up with Cronkite and Huntley-Brinkley and local news programming, and still watch it daily. It's still news.

Cable news channels these days are almost 100% commentary, rather than actual news programming. The broadcast stations and networks, though, still do news programs that are mostly just reporting.

That's why those three networks each have much larger audiences for news than any of the cable news channels. Generally, their viewership for each network outnumbers the total viewership of news programming at any hour on Cable News Networks.

Just try it for a few days. Try each of the networks and see which one does the news that suits you best. I think you'll be surprised. Also, subscribe to any big city daily newspaper. If you ignore the opinion pages, you'll get old-fashioned news reporting there, too.

24-hour cable news has to fill a 24-hour news cycle. It does that by having pundits offering opinions on the news, not by presenting reporting.

[grumpyduck]

3. Thanks, I'll give them a try again

I gave up on TV news years ago due to all the commercials and stuff and switched to online, where I can check five or six sites in a short time, several times a day at my convenience, and ignore the ads. But I'll check the networks out again.

[zipplewrath]

4. News for profit

That time that you both remember was actually a very brief time in the history of journalism. It was a brief time when news casts weren't meant to actually make a profit, but were seen as part of the public service that a TV station was supposed to provide as part of getting and keeping a broadcast license. You only have to go back to the Hearst era of "yellow journalism" to see what "for profit" journalism causes. Franklin ran about the worst example, by modern standards, of journalism with his daily.

The Cronkite era really ended with 60 minutes when networks found out they could make a profit on these shows. CNN and the 24 hour network made it worse. Not right away, but slowly over time as they tried to get more and more viewers. Today, it's no different than any other entertainment show, it is all about eyeballs watching commercials.

[Delmette2.0]

11. I fooled them.

Since commercial breaks last 4-5 minutes I jump up and do something around the house. It might be putting a load of laundry in the washer or dryer or unloading the dishwasher or any number of of small tasks that need to be done.
If there is nothi g to be done I jump on DU and at least find a post that looks interesting to read when the news is over.

[trev]

5. "Network", 1976.

Paddy Chayesfsky knew the score.

But yes, there are still some good news sources.

[DFW]

6. These days

Almost everyone is Howard Beale.

[colsohlibgal]

7. Cronkite Ended The Vietnam War

The spin doctors kept saying we were close to winning that war.....which prompted Uncle Walter to go over there to see what’s what. Once back, at the end of his program, in a clearly labeled special comment, he said it was clear the best it was a stalemate. Popular opinion changed almost overnight.

Those days ended when Reagan did away with the long standing Fairness Doctrine, birthing Fox News. Here we are, a bit over 3 decades later, and our democracy is on Life Support.

[trev]

8. "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

Lyndon B Johnson.

[moose65]

9. True, except....

The Fairness Doctrine did not apply to cable channels. It only applied to channels that use the public airwaves. Therefore it had no effect on Fox News. However, not having it DID have an effect on AM hate radio!

[LiberalArkie]

12. And also news then was not a profit center, then entire network paid for the news

as a public service as was required by the FCC. It is nor required to be a public service any more and is a profit center.

It used to be radio covered the weather and broadcast information. That was why people were told to have a radio and extra batteries. Since most of them are run by automation or from studios far away, that does not happen (usually). There are some that might have a locale presence, but not many.

[infullview]

10. At one time news over public airwaves was regulated.

You can thank Ronald Reagan for media deregulation over the air and cable for the rest.