Experts and critics question intentions of orca in SeaWorld Orlando trainer death

Lord Gonchar sayeth:

This is why Fox isn't going to change anything anytime soon.

Yes, and Britney Spears is more popular than Trent Reznor. Doesn't mean she's a better songwriter. No one's arguing the popularity of Fox.

(Edited to add quote due to pagebreak.)

I think the arguements of all can be neatly summed up in this Jib Jab (guys who did the 2004 campaign This Land) cartoon: What We Call the News. Enjoy!

Seriously Gonch, what do the ratings have to do with the legitimacy of news? It's not a relevant point.

Lord Gonchar said:
Just because you're watching "Fox News" doesn't mean Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck and their ilk are doing news programs for the most part...and I'm not sure they claim to be.

I think you've seen the Stewart on O'Reilly segments, where Bill steadfastly adheres to the idea that Fox offers fair and balanced reporting. And regardless of that, talk to people. My father-in-law is convinced that everything on that channel is the gospel truth as 100% factual information. I recently had to talk some idiot off a ledge on one of my Facebook friends' links who was convinced that, because she saw it on Fox News, the feds were tapping her phone because she was an outspoken Obama critic. Never underestimate how stupid people are.

Nothing. It was a related point in that what they're doing works. They have the audience. Nothing is going to change anytime soon. If anything, others looking for a cut of those numbers will emulate even more closely what Fox does.

I have no anecdotal evidence or friends who are loopy, so I can't fire back with stories about people who take the other news channels (or even Fox) way too seriously. But I think it's safe to bet that it's not a one way street.

I dunno what I'm supposed to say now. All the news channels seem to run 'shows' that mix news, opinions and editorial-style stuff. Right now as I type this CNN has Larry King Live on, MSNBC is running The ED Show and FOX is showing Red Eye. All three look to be people discussing various topics. No one is simply saying "this is what happened today."

I guess I really don't believe what FOX does is any different than what the other news channels do or that presenting news and news-related entertainment with an angle or slant is all that bad.

Breaking news:

Channel 1: Gonch fell down the stairs.

Channel 2: Tragedy strikes as Gonch falls down the stairs.

Channel 3: We told you so! Gonch fell down the stairs and now he's going to blame you.

Does it really matter? Pick which way you like to hear it and occasionally switch over to another channel so you can laugh at all the idiots that like to hear it their way - or pick the one least like your POV and be challenged by opposing ideas...

...they all got it wrong anyway, I tripped going up the stairs and stubbed my toe. :)

I think the biggest difference is the way viewers perceive these shows. In my experience, most of your loyal Fox News followers are 100% convinced that everything uttered by O'Riley, Beck, Hannity, etc. is entirely factually accurate, and that "news" from any other source is liberal lies. Viewers who watch the same editorializing stuff on other channels generally seem more aware of the difference between opinion and actual news. Of course there are exceptions to this, but in general it seems to be the case.

I watch the Daily Show on a regular basis, and while I certainly don't consider it to be "real news", even they do a better job at presenting (or making fun of) both sides than Fox.

GoBucks89 said:

rollergator said:
but I'd be willing to bet that Maddow and Olbermann consider themselves to be more editorial in nature.

The Maddow "I am not pushing an agenda" ads that MSNBC ran during the Olympics seem contrary to that bet.

Not all editorializing is necessarily meant to "push an agenda".

That being said, coming from Mad Dog Maddow I would consider that statement to straddle the fence somewhere between claiming objectivity and being somewhat disingenuous - and I am one of those that typically agrees with Olbermann and Maddow.

P.S. - I can't speak to Gonch's fall (or toe-stubbing) - but I can say that I appreciate Fox's *ratings theory* of marketing..."if it draws viewers, do it" is a BUSINESS plan that works, regardless of how I feel about their opining...

Then again, as Obama told McCain - "the election is over, Senator". That drew HUGE ratings in my house, LOL... ;)

...And yet, O'Reilly is very clear that what he offers on his show is opinion. It is generally based on the news, but it is not itself news, and on the occasions that I have seen his program he has occasionally made that point. Usually when pointing out that Fox News is supposedly the less-biased *news* operation.

And that may possibly be true. But does Fox News have any news shows? Or do they just do the headlines at the top of the hour?

(I remember when CNN Headline News was a repeated 30-minute newscast. Now it's just another channel of "analysis" and "opinion"...)

--Dave Althoff, Jr, who finds radio to be a more convenient news source than CATV

RideMan said:
...And yet, O'Reilly is very clear that what he offers on his show is opinion.

Does he also make it clear that he often makes stuff up, completely out of thin air? I'm genuinely curious, as he's been caught flat-out BS'ing more times than I can possibly count. And don't even get me started on Glenn "I don't even know why I'm mad" Beck.

And that may possibly be true.

Maybe in Bizzaroland. There is documented evidence of the Network's intent to skew things in a certain direction. Look up the Moody memos.

But does Fox News have any news shows? Or do they just do the headlines at the top of the hour?

I think they have 2-3 hours of actual news reporting.

Once a program is established as being opinion and commentary, that should disqualify it as a news *source*. Pundit says that "x" is happening, if you care, your reaction should be to investigate "x" with an actual news source, then you can decide whether the pundit has a valid point or is full of little more than hot air.

Glenn Beck is an interesting 'edge case'. His entire show, at least the episode I caught, was based entirely on conjecture. He actually indicated that everything he was talking about was literally made up: he was taking a real issue, creating a hypothetical situation based on that issue, and carrying it out to its ridiculous extreme. But the entire scenario is, in fact, hypothetical...and he actually said as much on the show. But that's how he goes about making his point.

Far more interesting, though, in the context of this conversation, is the news headline that appeared this morning on CoasterBuzz, in which Cedar Fair is "pleading for votes" with its most recent letter to unit holders. Not that Jeff would ever express any kind of bias in a CoasterBuzz headline... :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I know a lot of republicans who seem to believe everything they hear on FOX and view everything on MSNBC to be propanganda. And I know a lot of democrats who feel just the opposite. Don't think that proves anything other than the fact that folks will tend to see the bias with which they disagree and miss the bias with which they agree.

I wouldn't expect someone from FOX or MSNBC to admit in public that their shows are biased. Thats just marketing. You might get someone to admit off the air/record but I would not expect it. Risk is too great now with everything that is said getting onto some blog somewhere.

To someone who leans left, a "news" person who leans left is just standing straight up telling it like it is and a "news" person who leans right is way out in right field. And to someone who leans right, a "news" person sho leans right is just standing straight up telling it like it is and a "news" person who leans left is way out in left field. Its all a matter of perspective.

rollergator said:

P.S. - I can't speak to Gonch's fall (or toe-stubbing) - but I can say that I appreciate Fox's *ratings theory* of marketing..."if it draws viewers, do it" is a BUSINESS plan that works, regardless of how I feel about their opining...

I couldn't really support that any more than I could support doctors/healthcare professionals structuring a business model with the sole intent of attracting patients and making money. Journalism has a professional standard/code that needs to be adhered to in all cases where news is being reported. Now the editorial/analytical shows are another story, so long as they are clearly marketing those shows for what they are.

RideMan said:
Glenn Beck is an interesting 'edge case'.

Did you catch his act at CPAC? He went on and on (and on) about how progressivism is destroying this Country, at least partially through those evil "taxes".

And guess where he learned about all this? The library (and he took pleasure in pointing out how "free" this info was (it's not)). It's like he sets out every day to outdo his idiocy. At least he's found his calling, I suppose.

Clearly Maddow, Matthews & Co. are pushing the on the air persona that they are just reporting the facts and letting folks reach their own conclusion (with occasional interjected opinions). And Limbaugh, O'Reilly & Co. are selling the same shtick just to different folks. There is nothing wrong with that but I think folks should acknowledge that is what is happening. News/editorials/entertainment have all been fused together.

And unfortunately, elections are never over. Every day every politician is running for the next one. One of our problems (unfortunately among many).

C'mon folks - your comments are not pithy.

Carrie M. said:

rollergator said:

...but I can say that I appreciate Fox's *ratings theory* of marketing..."if it draws viewers, do it" is a BUSINESS plan that works, regardless of how I feel about their opining...

I couldn't really support that any more than I could support doctors/healthcare professionals structuring a business model with the sole intent of attracting patients and making money. Journalism has a professional standard/code that needs to be adhered to in all cases where news is being reported.

You just won't let Cronkite die, huh? LOL. For the record, Carrie, I *wish* we could go back in time just for that one purpose - credible journalism. But that industry is, for all intents and purposes..."yesterday's news". At least in this country it seems to be.

Me saying that I *appreciate* that Fix makes money doing what they're doing doesn't mean I "agree" with it. It means I understand how extremely profitable it is for Fox to do so...

edit: Fox, not Fix. That was an honest (albeit somewhat editorial) typo... :)

CP Chris said:
I think the biggest difference is the way viewers perceive these shows. In my experience, most of your loyal Fox News followers are 100% convinced that everything uttered by O'Riley, Beck, Hannity, etc. is entirely factually accurate, and that "news" from any other source is liberal lies. Viewers who watch the same editorializing stuff on other channels generally seem more aware of the difference between opinion and actual news. Of course there are exceptions to this, but in general it seems to be the case.

I watch the Daily Show on a regular basis, and while I certainly don't consider it to be "real news", even they do a better job at presenting (or making fun of) both sides than Fox.

You just proved the point I made several pages back.

This is when I'm glad to be Canadian. Oops! Did I just say that? And yes, winter olympic record for gold medals. Ha!

For some reason I can't get LostKause saying, "Just because it's profitable, doesn't mean it's right" out of my head right now.

Did someone say my name?

I like to switch between all the big news channels, to get different "viewpoints". O'Reilly, for example, sometimes makes some sense to me, but he doesn't hypnotize me to the point that I can't tell when I don't disagree with him. That's the fun in watching opinion shows like his; you can yell at the TV when you don't like what he says. Opinion shows, such as his, are entertainment to me. Bill O'Reilly is still full of himself, and a big dork.

I kind of don't care so much about some of the hot topics that the media tries to make a big deal, just to get ratings. It's not even fun to hear people complain about them anymore.

...And strangely, Andy, I feel that if Fox News channel wants to slant and embellish, because of higher ratings, they have the right to do so. It's up to the viewers to try and understand how the media can take advantage of the audience. If one is worried that some people wont see through the TV news tricks, than "Just because it's profitable, doesn't mean it's right" could be a justifyable statment, but I'd like to leave it up to the viewers to figure it all out.

I don't feel that "the media" is evil, or anything. I work in that environment. When I write something goofy for the local paper, I purposely try to mess with being somewhat controversial to a very small degree, with a slightly attention-grabbing headline, for example. "Is Percy Jackson the new Harry Potter?", was a recent headline that comes to mind. How many HP fans are going to read that as soon as they see it because they fear that their beloved character could soon be replaced in popularity?

I really don't care deeply about this subject, because it doesn't directly affect me, so therefore, please consider this post to be a rant. :)

For anything that anybody in commercial broadcasting does to make sense, you have to understand what business they are in (sales) and what product they are selling. Here's a hint: it isn't news and opinion. It certainly isn't programming. No, what these people are selling are eyeballs.. The programming is just the bait they use to catch the eyeballs that they sell to their customers, the advertisers. This should be true for newspapers as well, but newspapers have forgotten what business they are in, and they are dying off as a result. Oddly enough, the Columbus Dispatch, which really isn't that great of a paper, is an unusual exception to that rule.

Anyway, the broadcaster chooses his bait to go after the largest group of eyeballs available to sell to his customers. When Fox hit the air, they opted to go for what appeared to be an underrepresented segment of the population: political junkies who don't happen to like CNN or MSNBC. With CNN and MSNBC splitting up 50% of the political junkies, Fox can reel in the other 50% for itself. Sounds like a good plan to me.

The exception in broadcasting is National Public Radio, because they are paid for by the member stations, most of which are paid directly by their listeners. So instead of harvesting ears and selling them to advertisers, NPR has to sell itself directly to the ears, and accordingly programs to appeal to a specific group of ears: the ones that are attached to brains which are inclined to donate to public radio. THAT requirement means that they have to appeal to a different audience than you might expect.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.