ADN

LoL, your post deepsepia (welcome to AF!!!) is exactly what I said...Sensationalist crap with an agenda...If a bridge falls, sure that's news...But is it not news if you say, "The old bridge across Uber Island has been renovated, commuters can now rest assured that as they travel along I-69 will be safe from road hazards for years to come.."

Isn't that news to each and every person that goes down I-69..? And more so, to someone that sees that can wonder if their bridges are safe that they travel on...Just the same as they would think when they see bridges collapsing...I worked broadcast journalism in college, so maybe I'm a little harder on news than I should be...

But even still, this thread is about CNN and MSNBC, not news in general...The point is that there's a place for sensationalist crap, and if those stations are in on the mix, what the hell...You don't expect to turn on ESPN, for example, and see them doing top of the hour stories about what happened on Real World or shit about Britney and her kids...Maybe some people need tragedy to feel good about themselves...Maybe someone sees fucked up news and helps them get over their own drama...Me, I got enough issues...I don't want to hear about other people's crap they got going...What happened to Britney happens all over the US everyday, and if you want to know that stuff, great and more power to you...Turn to MTV or E! and have at it...But when your name is "Cable News Network", I want and expect to see real news more often than not...No argument that's not the case on the average day unless we're looking at monumental tragedies...

Übermensch wrote: But even still, this thread is about CNN and MSNBC, not news in general...T

Specific to CNN and MSNBC, the problem is running a 24/7 news operation without enough real news people. Real news people cost real money. Doing a good story takes an investment, and news divisions are seen as money-losers.

60 Minutes is a good example of well-produced news. . . . they produce 4 stories a week, for a total of 48 minutes of content (12 minutes of commercials). You can do a much better job producing 48 minutes a week than running an operation 24/7. PBS' Frontline is similarly high quality . . . but they do maybe 20 stories a year!

The cable news channels do a much better job with business news, which gives them better content.

I definitely agree that 24 hour news, by definition, is going to require a lot of “filler” and fluff-pieces. I see no reason why they can’t run more “news magazine” type shows as has been suggested (although DATELINE is basically tabloid garbage).

CNN specifically has given the reigns over to personality driven “news” shows: Larry King, Lou Dobbs, and Anderson Cooper. What a line up. ANDERSON COOPER 360 has got to be the worst excuse for news programming on television.

I recently watched GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, and one is struck by the highly informed and educated delivery of someone like Edward R. Murrow, who must be spinning in his grave in the face of Headline News, etc.

All these years later, Paddy Chayefsky’s vision of news-turned-entertainment so brilliantly satirized in NETWORK is our unfortunate reality.