RIP Walter Cronkite

[a completely inoffensive name]

Cronkite was good at what he did, but I'd never want to go back to a time when most Americans sat around for 30 minutes each even to have their news spoon fed to them. I much prefer varied sources, and competing viewpoints to having to take one person's word on it because they say "that's the way it is".

Sorry to tell you but that's how it still is nowadays. People watch the type of partisan news (O' Reilly, Obermann) that fits their ideology to comfort themselves and not deal with having to think for themselves or possibly even realize that the opposing side might have some good points as well.

Nowadays opinions are not based on the raw facts, select facts are manipulated to wrap around and support the opinion and only the facts which can be manipulated for either side are the ones presented in current news (at least from pundits).

From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

I really don't know what to think of it, on one hand I think it is pretty sad when people listen to pundits instead of hearing the raw facts from journalists and making their own decisions, on the other hand I wouldn't care for government saying what the public can and cannot watch.

Hey, maybe I could make a thread about this doctrine and get a better view of both sides.

[Xiahou]

Sorry to tell you but that's how it still is nowadays. People watch the type of partisan news (O' Reilly, Obermann) that fits their ideology to comfort themselves and not deal with having to think for themselves or possibly even realize that the opposing side might have some good points as well.

Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong.

People have varied news sources, with the Internet being the most prolific and fastest growing medium. Note- before anyone starts handwringing about unreliable Internet blogs:

Very few Americans (1%) consider blogs their most trusted source of news, or their primary source of news (1%).

From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:

From what research I've done, our news has greatly improved since it's removal. The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources.

I don't want to drag a memorial thread too far off topic, so I'll leave it here.

RIP Cronkite, but I'm also glad that our news media has evolved beyond the need for a Cronkite.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sorry to tell you, but you're wrong.

People have varied news sources, with the Internet being the most prolific and fastest growing medium. Note- before anyone starts handwringing about unreliable Internet blogs:

From what research I've done, our news has greatly improved since it's removal. The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources. To suggest we were better off with less ways to get information is insane.

Link gives error.

When did I say I wanted less ways of getting information? I am just saying I would like less propaganda perpetuated by both sides if selected facts that everyone on the left are baby killing socialists and everyone on the right are war loving fascists.

When I read "varied" news sources like the Huffington Post and the Dredge Report I feel most of the time like I am not closer to the truth of the matter. Which reminds of me a Jefferson quote:

"To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, "by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only." Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more completely deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. . . . I will add, that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false."

I believe at this point television can be used instead of newspaper as well.

The fact that a solid majority of people are not happy with the current state of journalism speaks volumes to how far we've come from a time when most people were perfectly happy to be fed news from one or a couple sources.

So doctrine gets removed ----> People begin to dislike journalism nowadays = Journalism has improved from lack of doctrine?

Maybe it goes like this: doctrine gets removed ----> Internet comes about with raw facts and information now more prevalent then ever = People realize what a sham modern news is nowadays?

[Hooahguy]

From what research I have done, modern news began to turn into what it is now after the removal of the Fairness Doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_doctrine) in 1987:

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

I really don't know what to think of it, on one hand I think it is pretty sad when people listen to pundits instead of hearing the raw facts from journalists and making their own decisions, on the other hand I wouldn't care for government saying what the public can and cannot watch.

Hey, maybe I could make a thread about this doctrine and get a better view of both sides.

AFAIK, the fairness doctrine was aimed at talk show hosts, mostly conservative. ever since the 90's conservative talk radio has shot up, while the tv and newspapers have gone down in popularity.
the whole point of a talk show is for some guy or gal to run his/her mouth off about some topic and his/her opinion about it. making the talk show host present the other side undermines what free speech is all about. the host should be allowed to say whatever he wants as long as he is not hate-mongering.
if people want the one sided view, ok, go and listen to that show. but dont make them hear the other side if they dont want to hear it.

in short: the news is meant to be fair and seeing both sides. talk radio is not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

AFAIK, the fairness doctrine was aimed at talk show hosts, mostly conservative. ever since the 90's conservative talk radio has shot up, while the tv and newspapers have gone down in popularity.
the whole point of a talk show is for some guy or gal to run his/her mouth off about some topic and his/her opinion about it. making the talk show host present the other side undermines what free speech is all about. the host should be allowed to say whatever he wants as long as he is not hate-mongering.
if people want the one sided view, ok, go and listen to that show. but dont make them hear the other side if they dont want to hear it.

in short: the news is meant to be fair and seeing both sides. talk radio is not.

I don't know why people are accusing me outright supporting it when i say I don't know what to make of it, but anyway, when this doctrine was in place it was enforced for all mediums which I don't care for, for the reason you say in your post, but in terms of the news which we need to make important decisions it is important that it should not be spun/manipulated in favor of the presenters bias would you agree with that?EDIT: You do from your last sentence.

So how do we go about making sure the news is unbaised without trampling over anybodies free speech?

[Hooahguy]

i wasnt saying you were supporting it. i was just making a point against the doctrine.

the way how you get unbiased news is to make the fairness doctrine ONLY apply to the news. not talk radio.

news =/= talk radio

[a completely inoffensive name]

i wasnt saying you were supporting it. i was just making a point against the doctrine.

the way how you get unbiased news is to make the fairness doctrine ONLY apply to the news. not talk radio.

news =/= talk radio

(Just asking) What about the pundits who give news but put their opinion on it? Is Bill O Reilly news or is he entertainment?

[Hooahguy]

(Just asking) What about the pundits who give news but put their opinion on it? Is Bill O Reilly news or is he entertainment?

entertainment. IMO, news and commentary have no place together.

[a completely inoffensive name]

entertainment. IMO, news and commentary have no place together.

So how would you see this revised Fairness Doctrine apply on Fox News where much of the channel has infused news and opinion so much it is hard to tell what is supposed to be entertaining commentary and what is supposed to be news?