Should 24-Hour News Cycles Be Constrained?

[NYcarbineer]

Here are four more words for you to consider: Turn. The. TV. Off.

No one's forcing you to watch and listen to this tripe.

It's not on now and usually isn't until the night, especially for viewing news. It's just I got the flu a couple weeks back and was in bed for a week. And I noticed. But point well taken. Maybe the monsters will devour themselves by overstimulating the herd into boredom. I for one am beyond sick of hearing the name "Donald Trump". I've gotten to where if I hear his name I instantly change the channel.

DONALD TRUMP!!!!

 

[g5000]

The mistake is in thinking MSNBC or Fox News or Drudge or Daily Caller or Kos are "news" just because they say they are.

They aren't. They are a product. They are a political product.

You don't have to buy their product. In fact, you are a fool if you drink their piss, but quite a few people on this forum drink the propaganda outlets' piss every day.

The problem with a 24/7 "news" station is that you cannot have even ten seconds of dead air time. That means you have to emit 86,400 seconds of "information" every single day. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year.

It's an impossible task. So what you get is a metric ton of bloviation and manufactured bullshit every hour. Stream of consciousness nonsense. And astronomical repetition, which is the hallmark of brainwashing.

To get advertiser dollars, these propaganda sources have to get eyeballs and ears, and they have found the best way to do that is to prey on your base fears. Doom music, prognostications of doom, stories of doom. Doom, doom, doom.

Sadly, the rubes who watch these shows have no critical thinking skills, and they bleev the more a piece of bullshit is repeated, the truer it becomes.

That is not the fault of the pushers of this dope, any more than it is PepsiCo's fault if you are one fat fuck.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Should 24-Hour News Cycles Be Constrained?


"Constrained" how?

By whom?

Using what method(s)?

 

[Silhouette]

The problem with a 24/7 "news" station is that you cannot have even ten seconds of dead air time. That means you have to emit 86,400 seconds of "information" every single day. Day after day. Week after week. Year after year.

It's an impossible task. So what you get is a metric ton of bloviation and manufactured bullshit every hour. Stream of consciousness nonsense.

.

And what you also get is...the temptation of those stations to manufacture stories from other stories in order to keep the machine humming and the profits flowing in... Hence the reason for this thread. I realize one has the choice to not watch or watch. I'm more concerned about the herd than myself in this regard. I haven't gone and shot up a school; but I'm more than a little worried about the herd when they can't pull themselves away from the sensation..

 

[Little-Acorn]

The people who wrote and ratified the 1st amendment decided that we'd suffer less harm from publishers and speechmakers who exaggerate, repeat themselves, or even make fake announcements, than from a government that has even the slightest power to regulate or "constrain" the actions of those publishers and speechmakers.

The invention of radio, TV, and the internet hasn't changed this a bit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The obvious is that if you own a franchise who makes money off of advertising by how many viewers you can attract to your nonstop news coverage....would you be tempted to "make news" out of nothing and sensationalize violence and upheaval in order to make profits?

Long and short answer is "yes". And that's exactly what we see day in and day out on all the 24 hour news outlets that are in it for the money (you know who you are). MSNBC has even taken part in ramping up racial tensions in order to spark new spinoff stories to feed their media machine. Fox did similar things (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin). CNN seems to be the only outlet that maintains a shred of journalistic integrity, except they obsess too much on the big authentic stories...but I suppose that's the other side of the coin of not manufacturing the news and still trying to keep viewers excited 24 hours a day for commercial revenues.

The trouble with manufacturing the news is that society spirals quickly into chaos. Homo sapiens is a creature of imitation. You flog a school shooting bit on your station for a week straight, discussing all the facets of the shooter, sensationalizing it and getting people to drool; other would-be shooters get the idea "hey! How come that guy gets all the attention!?" And so a phenomenon is born of the 24 hour news-for-profit.

There are a thousand stories that are better left untold for the sake of homo sapiens not playing "monkey see, monkey do". A passing mention and a stern look of digust/disapproval would do. But instead each deplorable human spectacle gets its own float like a twisted Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops.

While experts scratch their heads at why our public keeps getting weirder, wilder and more violent by the day.

Maybe what the US needs is our own version of the BBC.

It's called NPR... and it's 100 or so listeners.

Arbitron ratings show that over twelve million people listen to Morning Edition weekly. It's the second most-listened-to national radio show, after The Rush Limbaugh Show,[2][8] though some sources, among them Talkers Magazine, sometimes place the show third in audience rankings behind Limbaugh and The Sean Hannity Show, depending on the time (as of 2015, Hannity has fallen behind Morning Edition in the Talkers estimate).[9]

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Which answer is the homophobic one ?

Tommy!

Your 8 track player is jammed on track 2.

Eject it and reinsert.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The people who wrote and ratified the 1st amendment decided that we'd suffer less harm from publishers and speechmakers who exaggerate, repeat themselves, or even make fake announcements, than from a government that has even the slightest power to regulate or "constrain" the actions of those publishers and speechmakers.

The invention of radio, TV, and the internet hasn't changed this a bit.

The same is true of the 2nd amendment.

Those who wrote and ratified it, knew we were in less danger even from the occasional nutcase to shoots up a school or store, then from a government that had had the slightest power to restrict or ban ordinary people's guns.

The invention of machine guns, large magazines etc. hasn't changed this truth a bit.

 

[hazlnut]

The obvious is that if you own a franchise who makes money off of advertising by how many viewers you can attract to your nonstop news coverage....would you be tempted to "make news" out of nothing and sensationalize violence and upheaval in order to make profits?

Long and short answer is "yes". And that's exactly what we see day in and day out on all the 24 hour news outlets that are in it for the money (you know who you are). MSNBC has even taken part in ramping up racial tensions in order to spark new spinoff stories to feed their media machine. Fox did similar things (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin). CNN seems to be the only outlet that maintains a shred of journalistic integrity, except they obsess too much on the big authentic stories...but I suppose that's the other side of the coin of not manufacturing the news and still trying to keep viewers excited 24 hours a day for commercial revenues.

The trouble with manufacturing the news is that society spirals quickly into chaos. Homo sapiens is a creature of imitation. You flog a school shooting bit on your station for a week straight, discussing all the facets of the shooter, sensationalizing it and getting people to drool; other would-be shooters get the idea "hey! How come that guy gets all the attention!?" And so a phenomenon is born of the 24 hour news-for-profit.

There are a thousand stories that are better left untold for the sake of homo sapiens not playing "monkey see, monkey do". A passing mention and a stern look of digust/disapproval would do. But instead each deplorable human spectacle gets its own float like a twisted Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops.

While experts scratch their heads at why our public keeps getting weirder, wilder and more violent by the day.

It's what the people want. They demanded it in fact.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

The obvious is that if you own a franchise who makes money off of advertising by how many viewers you can attract to your nonstop news coverage....would you be tempted to "make news" out of nothing and sensationalize violence and upheaval in order to make profits?

Long and short answer is "yes". And that's exactly what we see day in and day out on all the 24 hour news outlets that are in it for the money (you know who you are). MSNBC has even taken part in ramping up racial tensions in order to spark new spinoff stories to feed their media machine. Fox did similar things (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin). CNN seems to be the only outlet that maintains a shred of journalistic integrity, except they obsess too much on the big authentic stories...but I suppose that's the other side of the coin of not manufacturing the news and still trying to keep viewers excited 24 hours a day for commercial revenues.

The trouble with manufacturing the news is that society spirals quickly into chaos. Homo sapiens is a creature of imitation. You flog a school shooting bit on your station for a week straight, discussing all the facets of the shooter, sensationalizing it and getting people to drool; other would-be shooters get the idea "hey! How come that guy gets all the attention!?" And so a phenomenon is born of the 24 hour news-for-profit.

There are a thousand stories that are better left untold for the sake of homo sapiens not playing "monkey see, monkey do". A passing mention and a stern look of digust/disapproval would do. But instead each deplorable human spectacle gets its own float like a twisted Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops.

While experts scratch their heads at why our public keeps getting weirder, wilder and more violent by the day.

I don't know about your poll. However 24 hour news is often very boring, it seems they can only concentrate on about six main news items that they keep telling everyone about for the whole news cycle.

Unless there's a major happening, they don't tend to deviate much from the set six news items across the 24 hour period.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Should 24-Hour News Cycles Be Constrained?


"Constrained" how?

By whom?

Using what method(s)?

 

[Markle]

The obvious is that if you own a franchise who makes money off of advertising by how many viewers you can attract to your nonstop news coverage....would you be tempted to "make news" out of nothing and sensationalize violence and upheaval in order to make profits?

Long and short answer is "yes". And that's exactly what we see day in and day out on all the 24 hour news outlets that are in it for the money (you know who you are). MSNBC has even taken part in ramping up racial tensions in order to spark new spinoff stories to feed their media machine. Fox did similar things (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin). CNN seems to be the only outlet that maintains a shred of journalistic integrity, except they obsess too much on the big authentic stories...but I suppose that's the other side of the coin of not manufacturing the news and still trying to keep viewers excited 24 hours a day for commercial revenues.

The trouble with manufacturing the news is that society spirals quickly into chaos. Homo sapiens is a creature of imitation. You flog a school shooting bit on your station for a week straight, discussing all the facets of the shooter, sensationalizing it and getting people to drool; other would-be shooters get the idea "hey! How come that guy gets all the attention!?" And so a phenomenon is born of the 24 hour news-for-profit.

There are a thousand stories that are better left untold for the sake of homo sapiens not playing "monkey see, monkey do". A passing mention and a stern look of digust/disapproval would do. But instead each deplorable human spectacle gets its own float like a twisted Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade that never stops.

While experts scratch their heads at why our public keeps getting weirder, wilder and more violent by the day.

 

[whitehall]

"Constrained", hmmm. "To force restriction or limitation, to bring into narrow compass, to force or produce from an unnatural manner, to hold back by force". Who would be in charge of the constraint and enact the force, the freaking government? I don't think so.

 

[Markle]

Most of a typical cable news channel's programming for any given day is not news. It's comments and opinions about the news. It would be as if your local paper had one page of news and ten editorial pages, not the other way around.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed. Yep, they have both opinion programs, well indicated as such, and their news programs. Both of which always display both sides of issues.

As for newspapers. Are they still being printed? They had their noses up in the air when the internet came about. They believed their own news clippings and believed they would be around forever. The internet was just a passing fad.

Today newspapers are nothing but Progressive opinion publications. The New York Times has set the stage for their opinion page now being on the front page and MAYBE one page of actual news...if there was a disaster.

 

[g5000]

FOX HOST 1: An airplane has disappeared off radar.

FOX HOST 2: Betcha it was Muslims!

FOX HOST 1: We have no other information about the fate of the aircraft or the causes of its disappearance.

FOX HOST 2: Except that it could have been Muslims...

FOX HOST 1: We have 59 minutes until our next hosts come on the air, and no information at all, so let's talk about how many Muslims it takes to blow up an airplane.

FOX HOST 2: It just takes one. That's it. Any Muslim could do it. Any Muslim at all.

FOX HOST 1: The Muslim who drove your taxi to the airport. He could do it.

FOX HOST 2: The Muslim you saw in the grocery store. Could have been her.

FOX HOST 1: One moment please...one moment please...

FOX HOST 2: The Muslim who snuck in from Canada. He could blow up an airplane.

FOX HOST 1: Okay, this just in. There were 329 passengers on the airplane. Here's some footage of their family members waiting at the destination airport looking frightened, consternated, and scared.

FOX HOST 2: Scared of Muslims. Chalk up 329 more on the scoreboard for ISIS!

FOX HOST 1: We go now to our chief doom correspondent. What do we know, Bob?

DOOM CORRESPONDENT: We know there are Muslims in the area around the airport which the missing plane departed from, Jane.

FOX HOST 2: Why aren't any Muslims protesting this terrorist act!?!

FOX HOST 1: What about that, Bob? Are there any Muslims expressing concern about this missing plane?

DOOM CORRESPONDENT: I have not seen any, Jane. They don't seem to care this plane is missing and that a Muslim could have done it. I'm certainly not going to talk to any Muslims. That's not in my contract.

 

[toxicmedia]

Most of a typical cable news channel's programming for any given day is not news. It's comments and opinions about the news. It would be as if your local paper had one page of news and ten editorial pages, not the other way around.

You'll never have quite the eye opener...as when you watch Fox or MSNBC pundits talk about an issue that you know about. For me, that's Obamacare. I know more about Obamacare than ANY of the government experts that talk about it in broad brush generalizations. It is almost infuriating to listen to everyone NOT really know what they are talking about.

If you apply this to every subject cable news networks bring up, they're a bunch of sensationalist idiots, who spew misinformation that sells

 

[there4eyeM]

As stated previously, the first amendment will be abrogated some time after the second.

 

[toxicmedia]

Most of a typical cable news channel's programming for any given day is not news. It's comments and opinions about the news. It would be as if your local paper had one page of news and ten editorial pages, not the other way around.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed. Yep, they have both opinion programs, well indicated as such, and their news programs. Both of which always display both sides of issues.

As for newspapers. Are they still being printed? They had their noses up in the air when the internet came about. They believed their own news clippings and believed they would be around forever. The internet was just a passing fad.

Today newspapers are nothing but Progressive opinion publications. The New York Times has set the stage for their opinion page now being on the front page and MAYBE one page of actual news...if there was a disaster.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Most of a typical cable news channel's programming for any given day is not news. It's comments and opinions about the news. It would be as if your local paper had one page of news and ten editorial pages, not the other way around.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed. Yep, they have both opinion programs, well indicated as such, and their news programs. Both of which always display both sides of issues.

As for newspapers. Are they still being printed? They had their noses up in the air when the internet came about. They believed their own news clippings and believed they would be around forever. The internet was just a passing fad.

Today newspapers are nothing but Progressive opinion publications. The New York Times has set the stage for their opinion page now being on the front page and MAYBE one page of actual news...if there was a disaster.

Would you like to debate me on an issue you think I'm not informed about?

 

[Fiero425]

Most of a typical cable news channel's programming for any given day is not news. It's comments and opinions about the news. It would be as if your local paper had one page of news and ten editorial pages, not the other way around.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed. Yep, they have both opinion programs, well indicated as such, and their news programs. Both of which always display both sides of issues.

As for newspapers. Are they still being printed? They had their noses up in the air when the internet came about. They believed their own news clippings and believed they would be around forever. The internet was just a passing fad.

Today newspapers are nothing but Progressive opinion publications. The New York Times has set the stage for their opinion page now being on the front page and MAYBE one page of actual news...if there was a disaster.

You should try watching FOX News and become informed.

If you want to be misinformed or have breaking news that's 2 days old, tune into FNC! They're pathetic and I should know; been watching since '97 with lineup of O'Reilly, Hannity & Colmes, and Crier!" They make news by making mistakes, puting a "D" behind a Republican's name that's been indicted or being prosecuted, and bemoans how bad Dems are in comparison to saintly Republicans! As long as they reported the facts, I was fine with how they slanted their news; now it's more about commentary and opinion and is unwatchable even though I push myself! The only program I can watch from beginning to end is Sat.'s, "Journal Editorial Report" & Sun.'s "Mediabuzz!" The rest has to be taken with a grain of salt! The only anchors I have any respect for are Shepard Smith and Brett Baier on "Special Report!" ;-/