Not Waiting For The Asteroid

And to think it all started with those ads on the boob tube with that cute little girl with the beret,breathelessly extolling us to await the new news medium.Anyone remember them? Sorta like that "zoomzoom twerp" only more appealing.

The scariest statistic in that posting is that 70% of people rely on television as their primary source of news. The most egregious bias that I have seen in reporting has been in TV news and for that reason I simply ignore this medium.

It seems somewhat paradoxical that the information content of TV news is so low given the bandwidth that a TV signal requires. Most subjects are covered only superficially on TV and TV emphasizes drmatic video footage which may have absolutely nothing to do with the story. The last time that I spent any appreciable time watching TV was in 2003 when the US invaded Iraq when there was no other way to get images of what was happening in near real-time.

About 10 years ago I had a frame grabber card that could also record all closed captioning for TV programs and I was surprised that it took me perhaps 1 minute to read the text that corresponded to a 30 minute newscast. I've got better things to do with my time than to sit in front of a very low effective bitrate medium and newspapers are actually far more informative in that the effective data transfer rate from medium to wetware is several orders of magnitude higher. Also newspapers tend to cover stories in more detail than TV.

I've never understood the appeal of TV news to so many people given the defects inherent in this means of reporting news. It may be that people are attracted by moving shapes on a screen. Occasionally images are usefull in reporting of news and less often video.

At least internet bandwidth has increased considerably in the last few years as has the efficiency of video codecs so people can post their own video segments on web sites so that soon we might see the demise of TV news. I'd rather see TV networks go down first before newspapers.

I have participated in two local tv news "stories"

They were so superficial and heavily edited they were a complete and utter joke.

The best way to judge any news source is to watch them cover a topic you know well. It's an eye opener when it happens.

lawnguy - the classic was when the rallies were going on and the female newscaster on CTV newsnet was interviewing the reporter from the anti coalition rally all the while Stephane Dion is speaking in the film footage. The newscaster asks the reporter if he heard Dion speak; the reporter says he missed Dion speaking.

There was never a connection to the fact that he was at an ANTI Coalition rally and they never verbally even made the connection. To this day, I don't know if that newscaster even knew what she did.

So many times my husband and I wonder how the newsreaders can be so stupid that they can't put two and two together with what they are hearing and seeing and what is written on the teleprompter in front of them.

loki: **...I've never understood the appeal of TV news to so many people...**

It appeals to short attention spans and lazy brains.

Craig Oliver's commentary on CTV News has been renamed Tales From the Crypt.

Alberta Girl, I remember that CTV segment very well: bizarre. As the anchor was interviewing, by phone, the reporter at the ANTI-Coalition rally in OTTAWA, the images on the screen were of the PRO-Coalition rally in TORONTO.

There was such a gigantic disconnect, I wonder how many people actually listened to the reporter. I do remember that the figure given for the attendance at the Ottawa anti-Coalition rally was reported as “hundreds”. Then the camerawork—close-ups—and the CTV screen banner covering part of the crowd—seemed set up to be deliberately deceptive. When the real figures were available, it seems there were at least 1500 at the Ottawa rally.

(CTV didn't have any reporting on the TORONTO ANTI-Coalition rally at all: go figure.)

On the CTV coverage, everything about the Coalition rallies seemed bogus. With the huge resources and experience of the on-location and studio crews, doing a routine coverage of a few outdoor events in easy to access places, I’m convinced this bogus coverage was quite deliberate: the pro-Coalition bias of the outfit simply eclipsed their professionalism. (One might well ask, “WHAT professionalism?) I’m delighted lots of people are now aware of this.

However, CTV’s poor performance here may be better than the TV coverage of pro-life rallies over the past many decades. No matter how well attended—they’re also dignified and quiet, compared to the rowdy, pro-abortion crowd (mainly lefties: one gets the picture)—TV (and the papers), which are staffed by abortion supporters, usually don’t cover them at all.

Anyone involved in the pro-life movement has known for DECADES that the MSM is altogether—and proudly, I’d say—biased in favour of the left side of the political spectrum. I’ve been complaining to the CBC Ombudsman for decades—paper trail only because he’s a CBC employee, for pete’s sake!—about its unprofessionalism and misreporting. At least only about 7% of Canadians bother to watch that travesty.

Newspapers? The advent of the National Post has been a godsend for those of us who do not toe the politically correct line. The Sun papers are also OK. The Globe and Mail is pretty much a lost cause these days: it seems that under Wm Thorsell, a homosexual, who slowly but surely turned the G & M into a pro-gay agenda organ, this paper went from being relatively conservative to full blown left-wing. (Even Margaret Wente, who penned a column a while ago saying she wasn’t afraid of PMSH, has now recanted: I guess being excluded from all those dinner parties got her down!) And the Red Star . . . it’s not even good enough for the budgie’s cage!

Without the internet, to give balance to the utterly misused power of the MSM, I think I’d have had a stroke or heart attack by now! To be able to publicly express one’s views, without the intermediary of an editor or producer—who are, most often, left-wing—is an astonishing freedom! Actually being ABLE to “speak truth to power” is the reality of the internet and sites like SDA. Alleluia!

Schadenfreude is seeing “the weeping and gnashing of teeth” of the media big-wigs (e.g., Craig, Bobby, Lloyd, Petey, etc.) as they see their power slipping away. Boo, MSM. Yeah, Kate!

Of course, providing cover for the evil animals that did this would have nothing to do with the demise of the enlightened Western media.

Alberta Girl:
I remember that coverage very well. I was so mad I almost threw something at the TV set. I was enraged not just the bias but the outright stupidity. But they made it worse with guest appearances by Shiela Copps and other left wingers without a moment dedicated to the opposite view. I was going to phone or e-mail CTV news but realized such bias is deliberate and my protests woul fail to impress. And it went on for hours. What little trust I had in CTV then, was reduced to no trust at all. TV News is little better than a joke, and a poor joke to boot.

Loki: I think glasnost has it right. TV "news" is simply another form of entertainment -- electronic rubber-necking effectively. It's Geraldo or Jerry Springer with an air of respectability. The media executives know this and figure that if they can throw in some spin to push their particular political agenda, so much the better. The reporters, being largely recruited from left wing re-education camps (perhaps a misnomer since most of the students were never really educated in the first place) aka journalism schools, are more than happy to oblige. The result is as you see -- dross.

The impression from MSM TV news is that it is written as if they are talking to a 5 year old, or a senior citizen with dementia. It is painfully superficial, and slanted.

Two things really stick out for me, that has invaded TV news in the last few years, out here on the Left Coast. These are the 'jump the shark' scenarios, that the end is near, or at least a massive re-org is not far off.

Two subjects of 'news' casts that have no place on news casts, are taking up substantial air time, that at one time, had little or no place, other than the scandal rags in your local neighbourhood supermarkets (or on granny's kitchen table).

1--Animal stories. Now I don't hate animals, but jeez louise, what place do animals have in a newscast? Lately, some nut called emergency services, I believe in Kamloops, saying they feared a whole flock of geese were frozen in the ice on some lake. So, the intrepid camera crew, along with the precious resources of emergency services, come up to the lake, showing the flock.......as they alighted into the air and flew away. Dumb, dumb, and dumber!

2--Entertainment 'news'. Is there any need to extrapolate the inanity and idol worship of pretty faces and empty suits, let alone what their uneducated opinions are? Yet, here they are, wasting space and time, masquerading as news.

It's no wonder MSM TV news is going down the tubes, they are playing to the lowest common denominator.

I only watch the first five minutes, to see what the headlines are, and how it's being spun, that's it.......and the weather....

At a party last night we got on the subject of TV bias and out of 6 people every one there said they look at CTV news with the same antipathy they look at an unflusher toilet, even CBC ranked higher on the don't watch list of these people. I never have believed much of telivision news but I have been taking the time to watch CTV in the last year, and they are absolutly the worst, their over the hill and beyone the far fence Craig Oliver and Count Loyd should both be in nursing homes, they have to cut away so people can wipe the drool off their faces when they get their beloved lieberals on. Stick a fork in these modes of media, they are all Lenins useful idiots.

I think that the news "reporting" has got no worst in the last 45 years, it's just we, the average Joes, can now better moniter their lies and spin.

THANX to the likes of Kate and other bloggers.

I took 4 placards to the Vancouver anti coalition rally. One of them said "CBC YOU DONT SPEAK FOR ME".

Far more than the other placards, that one connected with the people at the rally, with about 2 dozen people shaking my hand and telling me that that is exactly how they feel.

now that the world is much more computer savvy the dinosaurs of the MSM are starting to be revealed as the same ilk who arrested galileo for his scientific findings. I remember a canadian vignette commercial on TV when I was younger where some pompous a-hole comes to the conclusion that "the medium is the message" and I was confused because that statement made no sense. I now see how the MSM relies on your non-independance of thought so you may be indoctrinated with the "correct opinion" from the media who are obligated to shape society's thinking into their view of acceptable opinions. as opposed to the blogosphere which is constantly being analyzed, debated, and corrected

I find that one of the best things about the internet as news source is the fact that even the dinosaur media organizations and news gatherers like CP AP Reuters etc along with the TV and Print orgs that maintain websites can now be monitored and their poop archived for future reference.

Best thing is when they try to go back a clean out or edit archives to protect their pets... and learn that others have provided archives to guard against just that.

Stick the knives in a little further and twist.

Shaken:
Of course, providing cover for the evil animals that did this would have nothing to do with the demise of the enlightened Western media.

Exacta mongo!!!! Good reminder of what these sadists stand for. What the perfedious MSM protects!
I would include in their ineptitude if not malice towards the very people they where to inform. Watching your Nation being looted while waiting for Senate posts, for 30 years in Canada. While covering up heinous crimes by politicians. Than becoming part of the Entitlement elite.

The shilling for the Socialists, misinformation. Slurs against anyone not Trudopian. If not out right attacks by Infernal rights commissions.

Saying nothing of our loosing freedoms , even free speech. When you become a whore of the government, your owned.

The absolute bias in the Obama campaign while cheering on a false scientific scam like global warming. Than they wonder why we have frozen them out? The REAL journalists meanwhile who are truth tellers or talented, are making a mint.
People want transparency from all levels of society. Where tired of the lies, is something I hear often. When talking about the Print or Air media from a whole range of others.

I hope that these statistics are correct but at the same time I read too many Conservative blogs that only express a negative point of view. I would hope that as time progresses the Conservative blogs would go to a greater depth than a whine about how unfair Conservative life is in the MSM by expressing the positive aspects of the Conservative world view.

Bartinsky, I thought I was alone in that. I find CTV's editorial bent far more strident than the National's.

The missus prefers CTV over the National and I have to leave for the garage. Good thing it's heated.

Am I the only one who is confused by the poll numbers?

To wit:
70% said they got most of their news from TV,
40% said they got most of their news from the web,
35% said they got most of their news from newspapers.

Some part of this is not possible.

"I read too many Conservative blogs that only express a negative point of view."

Hmmmm .... perhaps we should put on purple dinosaur outfits and sing happy songs about loving you and you loving me too!

Know your enemy is the word not embrace or emulate his delusion.

See how easy it is when the subject is uncomplicated.
The flying monkeys know just what to say and
respond with Pavlovian predictability.

When you are on the net television and newspaper "news" seems strangely stuck in a time warp. First of all you have already read the stories online a day or two before. Second, there are no links. Third, especially television, goes really, really slowly.

Worst of all, when someone says something obviously wrong or biased, there is no way to check it or complain about it except, well, to go onto the 'net. And once you are on the net why would you ever go back?

Where do I get most of my news? It's not an easy answer..

I have the TV on most of the day (CNBC when the markets are open, other stuff other times), even if it's just background while I read or do other things. I use the TV as a reality check; if, for example, Jeopardy! is on, I know there can't be any imminent crisis. The broadcasting of crap is a distant early warning system saying "All is well".

If, on the other hand, something is important enough for special bulletins, then it may be near enough to affect me, and I'll pay attention. Severe weather alerts are an example. But most of the time, the only "news" I see is the 30-second spots hyping that evening's broadcast.

Sometimes, those spots are interesting enough for me to either watch the evening news (very rare) or look it up on the net (more often). But mostly, they just tell me what I'll be reading about in my morning newspaper. After I've read about something, I'll often turn to the blogosphere for additional comment and ideas, which often include links to other news sources.

So, where do I get most of my news? TV alerts me, but usually provides little substance. The net is immediate, but it's difficult to tell what's true (especially on blogs) and to apprehend the writer's bias. I trust my newspaper (the Post) to be fairly accurate but even it has its biases. I'd say I use all three forms, for different purposes and at different levels.

That said, I did decide to watch Global's 11 pm broadcast tonight, as the football game was a blow out. Lead story was the weather (no surprise as Ontario was buffeted by 60 mph winds today), and the story was what one might expect - lots of downed trees and powerlines, scattered outages, no deaths reported, and a few car accidents. OK, nasty storm but outside of flood warnings in a few spots, everything is quickly returning to normal.

Next story: Israel bombs Gaza. Usual shots of "surgical" bombs strikes, people being taken to hospital, and street riots in Gaza. Voice over does say "Most casualties are military targets". Cut to Toronto - demo outside Israeli consulate. Both sides are reportedly present, but if there was a camera shot of the pro-Israeli crowd, it was too brief to register. Three interviews with people from the pro-Gaza side: a wrinkled old crone shouting "It's not fair! We should do something!". Simultaneous thoughts of "What 'we'?" and "Why don't you go home and help them?" occur. Then (after more crowd shots which showed many young men with their faces covered), a young man is given 15 seconds to spout the usual anti-Israel BS, and finally - in the name of balance, I guess - a Jewish doctor who is on the Palestinian side is given a few seconds to say "We need to respect all life". Then, cut to a Jewish guy in his office who gets 20 seconds to say "Israel has to defend itself", and some Palestinian guy in his office who says "They started it!". Finally, a Hamas guy in that bastion of free speech and human rights, Iran, gets another few seconds to spout the party line. Then the story shifts to London, England, where they show riot police subduing protestors from the religion of peace.

So, summing up, the Palestinian side gets five people to state their case, while the Israelis get one. To me, this is "News, misunderstood".

I honestly don't know why so many people here seem to watch TV news; I stopped a long time ago after Barbara Frum's "Journal" ended. I know that Harvey Kirk and Nashton Knowle were nothing more than "bingo callers", as Frank magazine used to put it, but, perhaps naively, I trusted them. Count Floyd and Peter Lowbridge - not so much. About the only time I watch the TV news regularly is during elections, so I'm free from it most of the time.

TV news is "infotainment," just like World Wide Wrasslin'-- and just as (in)valid.

The one and only thing they are good for is contemporary pictures of breaking events- like 9-11, but also like 9-11, once the towers fall, it's all reruns and repeats of the same old "stuff."

One of our local news stations(Kansas City market) made a decision a few years ago to go to the "if it bleeds it leads" style.
Every newscast is a series of crime reports, car accidents, etc. They are even in the process of removing sports reporting completely from their newscasts, blowing up completely the "news, weather and sports" dinosaur formula.
They have been savaged by the so called "real" reporters in the area, and in editorials, but they are a least honest about what they do.
The funniest thing to watch is how they cover the violent crime that occurs mostly within an inner city corridor, mostly black criminals(and victims), and try to keep race out of the reporting. It's the one aspect of tv reporting where the pictures are strangely missing very often.

"And once you are on the net why would you ever go back?"

Jay IF I find the answer I'll post it in your comments.