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 -
John / Billybob
"Consider their female anchors: young, pretty, and wearing enough lip gloss to confuse low-flying aircraft."
Whoa, hold on there, Tex....don't be slammin my Laurie Dhue! Yeah a lot of lip gloss but consider how the news just shines coming from those sweet lips!
Khe-heh-heh-heh[Popeye laugh]
I concur. When I'm watching a interview and it turns into a shouting match, I turn the channel right way. If I cant make out what they are saying over the shouting, it's of no informational value to me.
Keep me informed if you get this off the ground. I would be more than willing to help with research.
But of course.
It's that Park Avenue/Riverside Drive mentality.
"All the people in my social circle are liberal, therefore everyone else must be liberal except for a few of those extremist nutcases out in the sticks."
If you haven't already read it, get a copy of Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point.
He has some interesting things to say about how ideas are spread; one of them concurs with what you just said.
Yes , I know.
Just showing that a good conservative voice was showing up in a publication that is seen in Malibu and Hollywood.
No, I haven't read that book, though I've read reviews and understand what you're referring to.
I have the closing tagline for these weekly broadcasts. It is:
"That's the way it REALLY was, on the 905th day of World War III."
John / Billybob
I dumped tv over seven years ago. When I am occasionally exposed to network and local "news" programs, it is literally funny. Oh, and it's not news. It's ALL entertainment, even Fox.
If I want to know what's going on, I don't waste my time with "push" media, who filter the news. I "pull" it off the internet and get the stories that interest me - as opposed to co-ed's posting their picture on the internet.
In a sense, we are living out "Fahrenheit 451," but it is voluntary.
And one other thing. Local news is the worst. I saw them a couple of months ago and had to look over my shoulder for jr high kids, because that is who they sound like they are talking to. It is insulting.
I tried to watch Ann Coulter on H & C the other night.
After 5 min. I couldn't stand hearing the dim Harpie interrupting and talking over Ann. ( the dims favorite tactic)
I quit.
A tangential, but not altogether unrelated idea I've had once upon a time was a news "portal" website that grouped sources by story topic, so a reader could see a variety of news articles, opinion pieces, and press releases from a multitude of sources and therefore determine for themselves where the truth lies amongst the spin.
(Example: a "story" might be something like the finding of the Sarin shell -- under that header would be links to every source that could be found with a related story. The web service would not archive the stories themselves, just provide links to the on-line sources.)
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Noble-sounding sentiment. However.What exactly do you hold our leaders' feet to the fire about? The dirty little secret of journalism is "story selection." You can hold the leaders' feet to the fire about the Abu Grahib scandal, and make it sound like W should fire Rumsfeld and then not run for reelection himself, out of shame. That is what the BS networks have done for a couple of weeks.
Or you can find some other stories - e.g., Gorelick's many scandals - and go with those stories. Or Kerry's flip flops. The dirty little secret of journalism is that the criteria for story selection follow from your politics - or else lead to your politics, chicken-or-egg style.
Journalism is politics; journalism is not objectivity and it cannot be otherwise. The problem with objectyivity is that it is about like wisdom. In fact, is it possible to be simultaneously unwise and objective? I think not. But the term for someone who boasts of wisdom is, "he is wise in his own conceit" - and it does not imply that the person in question actually is wise. So the minute you claim to be objective you betray your lack of objectivity.
The only way to attempt objectivity is to explicitly declare your perspective - to be self-critical enough to openly admit that your perspective has a name. I am conservative, which means that I think that the big picture is that the preamble to the Constitution defines the ends of good government, and that govenment should stay withing the boundaries defined by the body of the Constitution and the laws enacted under it (especially the Amendments clause) because a government limited to those means stands a good chance of being "good enough" - and a government which is not limited is very dangerous.
And I think that the "always meet your deadline" "if it bleeds it leads" and "Man Bites Dog" rather than "Dog Bites Man" guidelines for story selection lead to superficial, negative, and unrepresentative stories. Which is another way of saying that the rules for profitable journalism are the rules which motivate "liberal bias" in "the media." And that implies that the biggest rule of journalism, "thou shalt not attribute bias to any fellow journalist" is itself the biggest bias of all.
I recommend that you perruse this when cogitating on the venture you describe.
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.