Rather, network news irrelevant for my generation

Concord Monitor ^ | 9/24/04 | ANNE APPLEBAUM

[dave k]

Good article.

As a kid, before cable TV came around, I recall the Big 3 newscasts and news segments that my parents/grandparents would watch on a regular basis. The only 'alternatives' were PBS (for a more liberal slant), local news op-ed segments, and the Wall Street Journal, which was considered a hard-core 'capitalist' (aka: evil) newspaper by some of my left leaning relatives.

By God, if it was reported by Cronkite/Rather/Brinkley, etc, then it must have been true, right? How times have changed - for the better.

One thing I do miss, though - at least newscasts from the past were delivered seriously - no flashy graphics, no self-serving promotions, no mushy emotions from the reporters themselves. Most of the pioneers stayed away from the late-night and day-time talk show circuit, and they never interviewed each other about 'how they reacted and felt when __________ happened".

Call me cold-hearted, but I don't care to see Rather, Brokaw, etc sitting on Letterman and getting teary eyed about 9/11. I agree they they are entitled to their emotions, but as a figurehead for any major news outlet, the viewing public deserves someone who can remain calm and composed and who can give us the facts straight up. And that compusure should carry over to any other public appearance outside of their respective news shows.

[Gal.5:1]

I haven't watched TV network news since about 96. It's internet all the way. We are 36. And this even during the many years that my husband put food on the table working for a news network (as a tech/operator). It was awful, you should hear his stories. (remember 'Broadcast News'?) He's outta there now (hooray) and on his own freelancing. Much better!

I have relatives who are 65 and 85 who look forward to watching the big 3 networks every night at 5 or 6 and wouldn't dream of missing it, and yes, they believe everything the anchors say.