# Do you believe that there is a worrying fusion of entertainment and news?



## AmericanNationalist1776 (Jul 13, 2016)

I do. First though, I'm not talking about shows like John Oliver and Trevor Noah. It goes without saying that programs like those are not news. They may have some informative value, but they aren't newscasts.

I love watching the news, but I often find myself angry at the amount of time the U.S. media dedicates to correspondent analysis. This isn't news, this is entertainment. The only exception is when a newscaster is interviewing an actual expert like a senator, congressman, spokesman, etc. 

Another problem is that people seem to take the word of the correspondents as fact rather than opinion since they are presented by the various networks as experts. I've noticed that networks like BBC and Euronews don't do this in their general reporting cycle. These networks may have some entertainment programs but their not fused with a celebrity anchor at all hours of the day.

Thoughts?


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 13, 2016)

First of all don't believe that 'senators, congressmen, or 'spokemen' are experts in anything. Most in politics are experts in politics, which means spinning information to fit your narrative, and the same can be said of 'spokesmen'. 

If they have a top notch physicist talking about physics, or a teacher talking about teaching, or a priest talking about the Catholic church you get a larger amount of actual facts. 

As for news as entertainment of course this is the case. Faux News is an entire network designed specifically as propaganda for the Republican party. MSNBC generally has a more 'liberal' bent but it isn't outright propaganda. Faux News viewers have consistently been identified by studies as the least informed people by far. But I think all news broadcasts should be strictly about reporting what is happening, and other shows like 20/20 or similar left to turn those events into 'entertainment'. 

Even going back 50 years though you had the anchor or someone else on air who had a segment of 'comment'. Today though it's been so melted together as to not be recognizable anymore.


----------



## Holos (Jul 13, 2016)

Can we first better distinguish news from entertainment?

News are a point for further possible contention or a point of conclusion for a contention.

Entertainment is an established procedure, possibly gaining continuity or modification by further consensual involvement.

The main difference being that news may be directed by the receiving audience, and entertainment is generally directed by the producing agents. 

At such comprehension, news then becomes media for society (container of communities) and entertainment becomes media for communities (container of individuals).


----------



## AmericanNationalist1776 (Jul 13, 2016)

IsaacNewton said:


> First of all don't believe that 'senators, congressmen, or 'spokemen' are experts in anything. Most in politics are experts in politics, which means spinning information to fit your narrative, and the same can be said of 'spokesmen'.
> 
> If they have a top notch physicist talking about physics, or a teacher talking about teaching, or a priest talking about the Catholic church you get a larger amount of actual facts.
> 
> ...




I agree.

When I said senators, congressmen, and spokesmen I was imagining someone who was telling you about a bill or the agenda of the day for congress. The point you made though is very good, I should be careful about how I use the word expert. 

I couldn't agree more with what you said about physicists and so on.

I've found that the written word is becoming a better source for information since analysis and news must be separated in order for the article to be coherent.

I like the evening newscasts on the big 3 networks, BBC, Euronews, C-SPANN, PBS, and some others.


----------



## AmericanNationalist1776 (Jul 13, 2016)

Holos said:


> Can we first better distinguish news from entertainment?
> 
> News are a point for further possible contention or a point of conclusion for a contention.
> 
> ...



I've had trouble trying to exactly define the difference. I know what it is, but it's hard to describe. All I can say is analysis is not news.


----------



## IsaacNewton (Jul 13, 2016)

AmericanNationalist1776 said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> > First of all don't believe that 'senators, congressmen, or 'spokemen' are experts in anything. Most in politics are experts in politics, which means spinning information to fit your narrative, and the same can be said of 'spokesmen'.
> ...




I also watch BBC and other foreign news outlets for news. They actually report news. PBS presents a number of these programs with no  commentary at all.


----------



## Holos (Jul 13, 2016)

AmericanNationalist1776 said:


> Holos said:
> 
> 
> > Can we first better distinguish news from entertainment?
> ...



Let's take two simple examples.

Movie theaters and Press journalism.

Analysis is a single skill that can be both applied and enhanced through news (journalism) and entertainment (theater).

Analysis is not dependent on any media form, it travels from one media to another. 

We can get complex once the nature of analysis is fully comprehended as association of various media transmissions.

The same media can transmit both news and entertainment.
Television is a good example. Television is a media.

A media is a frame or structure for expression.


----------

