Posted on 05/23/2004 9:29:50 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
These columns now appear in print in the Canyon News, 20,000 copies weekly in Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Malibu and 12 other L.A. communities. A high proportion of those folks could readily turn "The No Bullsh*t News" into reality.
Consider the Sunday news programs. Reporters pretend to ask relevant questions; politicians pretend to answer them. The reporters throw softballs to guests they agree with, or goad political opponents into making unfortunate statements. A minor slip of the tongue gets play if it fits a headline. Who takes these frauds seriously?
Guests try to avoid "committing news in a public place." The punishment for that is losing the next election. The press also fear "committing news." If they scare away potential guests, they’ll lose their next election, measured in ratings points. A few TV moderators attempt to conduct serious interviews. Consider two: Tim Russert on "Meet the Press," and Bill O'Reilly on "The O'Reilly Factor."
Except when his own biases get in the way, Russert does a good job. But his show is successful and attracts top-drawer guests -- talk-show veterans least likely to inadvertently say anything of substance. O'Reilly does a better job, and has more ordinary guests who haven't learned those obscurity skills.
But O'Reilly restricts himself. He’s a cottage industry on TV, radio, and in print. He’s in entertainment first, not news. How else to explain his interview with September Harness, an Indiana University co-ed who’s marketing provocative photos of herself on the Internet without objection from the University? Of course, photos of the unclad Miss Harness (suitably obscured) were broadcast in the story. Entertainment? Yes. But news? No.
Top-notch Internet research can easily establish when a statement by a public official, reporter, or network is inaccurate. One of last week’s lead stories was the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Repeatedly, both guests and reporters made false statements about the Geneva Conventions, and about military trials. The guests had axes to grind. The reporters were afraid to ask challenging questions, or hadn’t done their homework, or were deliberately peddling false claims. News was avoided; fraud was perpetrated.
Squeeze out the fluff, add hard facts. Enter "The No Bullsh*t News," suggested by an able colleague. It has three rules.
1. No “cotton-candy” news; filling time with content is not the same as telling the plain, unvarnished truth. Regular TV news wastes 90% of its time on guests who say nothing. We’ll invite retiring Georgia Senator Zell Miller, former New York Mayor Ed Koch, folks like that. The same rule applies to hosts. Only folks who’ll tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, are welcome.
Ordinary politicians will appear in video clips, thoroughly scrutinized, with humor when deserved.
2. The No BS News will be Internet-driven. Primary and secondary subjects for each week will be chosen on its website, with controls to avoid ballot stuffing.
3. This program will be independent. Networks have restrictions. ABCCBSNBC have lost half their viewers in the last decade, because more and more people distrust them. The big winner is Fox News, but they’re still entertainment-driven. Consider their female anchors: young, pretty, and wearing enough lip gloss to confuse low-flying aircraft.
The No BS News will be pure news. Low-budget, unique, building its own audience largely by word of mouth. Advertisers who agree with this approach will be sought.
How will this show be broadcast? On the Net. More and more Americans have broadband to handle live TV. It would also be provided on satellite for cable systems.
An intelligent, refreshing news program can be done in Joe Friday style, “Just the facts, ma’am.” If you’re interested, let's do lunch.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor is a First Amendment lawyer and author who lives in the Blue Ridge. CongressmanBillybob@earthlink.net.
- 30 -
Bill O'Reilly claims to be looking out for you. Thanks but no thanks. He bullies from his bully pulpit. His research cannot hold a candle to Rush or Hannity and the collective intelligence of FR posters.
John / Billybob
I'd give a hundred bucks to see something like that get started(and I don't care if my name is laser inscibed on one of the bricks of the new building or not). If I had a billion dollars, I would start it myself...I'm that serious..I'd leave nursing and go into the news service!
For that matter, can we get a national USA Today type rag started embodying the "No Bullsh.. News priciples"!
I'd like to see the Old grey Whore NYSLIMES given a run for its money. We would need a wire service(like AP) as well!
I like it. There is a tv program on cable that does this on products, etc. I think it is Penn and Steller or Teller or whatever. They are great. I love to watch them. They pretty much put the truth arrow through everything.
In O Reilly I find a laziness and wish to be a "factor" in this next election.
His claims to any real authority and intellect in world affairs and geopolitics are mostly a joke.
For all intents and purposes O'Reilly did not exist pre 9/11 and his knowledge base reflects this. For those who have taken it upon ourselves to look out for ourselves Bill O'Reilly is not required viewing.
Our hope is that someone with means who feels as strongly makes this happen.
The long term goal is to have this program have impact on news reporting. Assuming that this program is sufficiently funded and is able to survive, here is the scenario that I envision.
This program proves its credibility thru quality presentation of facts. It develops a buzz and a following because we take the bold step of proving and establishing facts and debunking myths or frauds perpetrated by the press. The buzz suddenly goes to more public forums with greater numbers of listeners such as Talk Radio and cable news. Our website will archive our findings. This provides a library of fact.
If we can establish and maintain the credibility as a center of fact, then news organizations will have to react to protect their credibility.
It is important that we maintain a factual basis as opposed to advocating positions. Our standard should be truth regardless of which politician or party is benefited and which is hurt. The role of the press is to hold our leaders to the fire and feret out the truth.
John / Billybob
I wanted to build on your sentiment of powerful stuff. If the program is perceived to be getting any traction, there will be a backlash against it as news organizations don't want to be threatened. The more impact and publicity of the program, the more intense the challenge.
It is imperitive that we establish and maintain credibility to hold up against the onslaught.
Righttalk *PING*
Well that's the rub...sometimes the Republicans will need to take a black eye as well as the Democrats.
The great danger will be to get caught up in some of these political pissing contests and get swayed by the more sensational evidence one side may be producing over the other. A jaundiced editorial eye will have to be main-tained to weed out political distortions.
Also I think reporters from certain media schools and Journalistic back-ground will need to be personan non grata.
If the rag is gonna have a slight right of center(balnced in yesterdays terms) tilt, then care will need to be taken regarding motivations as to reasons for employment. A good balance for me would be to have about a 55/45 split in favor of conservatives in the upper editorial and reporting staff...you put the Libs onto the puff human interst stories with tight editorial over-site...Libs are good at puff stories!
The key is that the truth prevails. If the goal is to stake out positions, then it is essential to not devolve into opinions. If the facts dictate that the Republicans need to take a black eye then so be it. Truth should not be compromised.
As John noted, this will be done in Joe Friday style - Just the facts ma'am.
Currently, the bias of media is so one sided towards the Democrats, shining the light of truth will be more threatening to them. In general, if there were no bias, the press would be most challenging to those in power.
With respect to your comment about getting caught up in a pissing contest, we will take a scientific approach in determining facts so I don't think that will be a problem. Specious arguments by one side will only be presented on the program if they can be proved false. If work still remains to prove their accuracy, then the specious comments will be omitted. We will only deal in facts.
We need people dedicated to the truth without pressing a political agenda. If we are perceived as one sided, our long term effectiveness will be minimized. Balance by the way doesn't have to result in a 50/50 split. Balance is strict adherence to the principle of truth.
Nevertheless, there can be legitimate proof that can be made. The challenge is to refute this proof. the sequence of how the proof was made would be on the web.
Bottom line facts are facts.
It is true, however, that some people can not believe facts that goes against their opinion regardless of how good the proof is. But a constant stream of quality findings will build credibility and will eventually take traction.
um, er...Ernest, In case you didn't know... Congressman Billybob is John Armor.
I like your ideas, littlegeorge, combined with some specialists in different fields.
Whoa there, Billybob, you may have hit upon a winner idea, innovative, too, better grab it up.
I believe people are "hungry" for truth, it needs to be presented in a non-rhetorical way, a new idea.
I think people would be turned off to usual declarations of truth, e.g. need catchy, new ideas to advertise.
Just think, make it go and get on the stock market, just like google has!!!!!
Good luck, if you "do it".
A HUGH idea for your new venture is: VISUALS.
The old "picture is worth a thousand words" is soooooo true, and I cannot help but wonder why our pubbies won't capitolize on the fact.
Remember Perot with his pie charts? They did have an effect, since he was able to capture 20% of the vote, astounding for a 3rd party.
And they did lend to explanations, but I would not suggest the pie chart as a visual, more along the lines of "proving the TRUTH"
Besides the shouting matches on pilitical shows is the real culprit:
commercials!!!
On those rare occasions that a super-knowledgable guest speaks, they are lucky to get 4 sentences in before the ol sorry, we're out of time bit.
That really angers me when we need good info and get it rarely.
My thoughts? A hearty best of luck. But, I think the mainstream media has to die. That is the only way it can be beat. And, IMO, the only way to kill it is to ignore it.
In general, EVERY story reported should be supported by clear visuals or graphics, as you say.
John / Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.