Dan Rather wants Obama to help save the news

donut · 07-30-09, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I don't think there's anything left to save. All the services look like "People" magazine and rags now. Hurry, hurry, get your dose of celeb pap. By the way, Jupiter (a planet in our solar system) has just disappeared, leaving scientists baffled over why Americans are not drinking more light beer.

Buddahaid

Jupiter has just disappeared?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/natio...y/1346057.html not to cause Thread hijack.

Buddahaid · 07-30-09, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donut

Jupiter has just disappeared?
http://www.kansascity.com/news/natio...y/1346057.html not to cause Thread hijack.

I wonder if the hole is composed of trillions of 1:4:9 obelisks? You know, "something wonderful".

Buddahaid

Max2147 · 07-30-09, 06:53 PM

Quality media can't be saved, because there's no demand for it. People these days like 5 second soundbites, flashy graphics, overly dramatic music, talking heads that scream and foam at the mouth, and "debate" shows that involve people shouting scripted soundbites at each other.

If there was still a lot of demand for quality news presented in a calm, reasonable, and intelligent way, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer would be the top-rated show on television.

Platapus · 07-30-09, 08:10 PM

Uh Mr. Rather needs to understand that you can't have a "Free and Independent" press if it is getting funding from the government.

07-30-09, 08:34 PM

I agree with what everyone is saying. A seperatation between press and state is fundamental to any free people. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the last six months. So now the people are starting to take it upon themselves to look at the facts, through other sources. This is a good thing Dan. BTW where's Kenneth?

Max2147 · 07-30-09, 11:44 PM

Although I don't agree with what Rather is supporting, I think it's important to note that there's a HUGE difference between state-funded media and state-controlled media.

Many free democratic countries have thriving state-funded media that is objective and perfectly free to criticize the government. The BBC state-funded, but it is still widely considered the gold standard for quality, objective journalism. They're also free to broadcast shows like Top Gear, which rips on the government (and especially its environmental policies) at every opportunity. Other high-quality state-funded broadcasters that I'm familiar with are the ABC and SBS in Australia and TVNZ in New Zealand.

In many cases these public broadcasters are superior to their commercial counterparts. For starters, they don't have to show advertisements. This is great for TV shows and even better for live sports. But more importantly, they don't have to pander to lowest common denominator audiences just to bring in the ratings. That leaves them free to broadcast higher quality programs instead of the reality TV and sitcom garbage you find on commercial networks.

There's a huge gulf between that sort of programming and state-controlled media, like you find in dictatorships.

07-30-09, 11:54 PM

The US has state-funded media. It's called PBS and it is less than objective when it comes to reporting the news. It is a bastion for leftist ideals, and biased reporting. Much like the EPA is a bastion of leftist controls on the US becoming energy self-proficient.

SteamWake · 07-31-09, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Max2147

there's a HUGE difference between state-funded media and state-controlled media.

WTF?

Oh well the vast majority of the media is already in the tank for the current administration anyhow. In fact they struggle to find villans now that Bush is out of office.

07-30-09, 08:10 PM	#4
Platapus Fleet Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 19,384 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 0	Uh Mr. Rather needs to understand that you can't have a "Free and Independent" press if it is getting funding from the government. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

07-30-09, 06:53 PM	#3
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Quality media can't be saved, because there's no demand for it. People these days like 5 second soundbites, flashy graphics, overly dramatic music, talking heads that scream and foam at the mouth, and "debate" shows that involve people shouting scripted soundbites at each other. If there was still a lot of demand for quality news presented in a calm, reasonable, and intelligent way, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer would be the top-rated show on television.

07-30-09, 08:34 PM	#5
CastleBravo Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	I agree with what everyone is saying. A seperatation between press and state is fundamental to any free people. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case in the last six months. So now the people are starting to take it upon themselves to look at the facts, through other sources. This is a good thing Dan. BTW where's Kenneth?

07-30-09, 11:44 PM	#6
Max2147 Seasoned Skipper Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 714 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Although I don't agree with what Rather is supporting, I think it's important to note that there's a HUGE difference between state-funded media and state-controlled media. Many free democratic countries have thriving state-funded media that is objective and perfectly free to criticize the government. The BBC state-funded, but it is still widely considered the gold standard for quality, objective journalism. They're also free to broadcast shows like Top Gear, which rips on the government (and especially its environmental policies) at every opportunity. Other high-quality state-funded broadcasters that I'm familiar with are the ABC and SBS in Australia and TVNZ in New Zealand. In many cases these public broadcasters are superior to their commercial counterparts. For starters, they don't have to show advertisements. This is great for TV shows and even better for live sports. But more importantly, they don't have to pander to lowest common denominator audiences just to bring in the ratings. That leaves them free to broadcast higher quality programs instead of the reality TV and sitcom garbage you find on commercial networks. There's a huge gulf between that sort of programming and state-controlled media, like you find in dictatorships.

07-30-09, 11:54 PM	#7
CastleBravo Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	The US has state-funded media. It's called PBS and it is less than objective when it comes to reporting the news. It is a bastion for leftist ideals, and biased reporting. Much like the EPA is a bastion of leftist controls on the US becoming energy self-proficient.