Scripting News: The crazy baseball fan rule (Scripting News)
johng
· 1 year ago
You need to spend some time reading Glenn Greenwald on Salon, if you don't already. It's the slothful lazy media and their willingness to repeat wingnut talking points rather than do their jobs that is the crux of the problem.
adventureran
· 1 year ago
This is a tough one. On one hand, I agree with you and will extend this to include newspapers that openly endorse candidates. Aren't newspapers supposed to "report" the news? It is true there are editorials that are merely one person's opinion, but for a newspaper as a whole to endorse any candidate, to me, is wrong. Who makes this decision anyway? Do they take an internal vote of their employees? Are employees who disagree ostracized?
However, you and many, many others who have large audiences, including entertainers, also endorse candidates and use their celebrity status to promote their own agendas. How do we monetize or regulate endorsements such as these or the ones you mention?
This is a debate not even ABC could screw up. Well .... maybe.
vardley
· 1 year ago
I love this idea.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
re: ''Aren't they making an illegal campaign contribution when they run a Republican attack ad without giving equal time to Democratic attack ads?"
At the risk of mistaking a serious question for rhetoric, the short answer is: no.
The long answer: The McCain-Feingold law in general does not restrict news and news-analysis programs from covering campaigns in any way they choose. Oh sure, there's a provision to bring a court-challenge, but I don't think anybody's actually tried it yet. It would require something really egregious, like a news anchor looking right at the camera and shouting "VOTE FOR XXXX" ... The message can't be implied. It must be explicit. And, of course, the whole notion of "equal time" on the airwaves ended in 1987 (thus giving broadcast media the same editorial freedoms print media have always enjoyed).
As for the NC GOP ad being "racist," I'm not sure how one arrives at that. It's an in-your-face cheap shot, to be sure. But to say that it's racist is essentially to imply that any criticism of Obama == racism. Indeed, I expect this to be one of Team Obama's main tactics between now and November.
If I say "I don't like Obama's Senate voting record," that alone doesn't make a racist. But nor does it if I say "I don't care for the people with whom Obama associates." It's about character, not race. It's Democrats, this time, who are making it all about race.
dave
· 1 year ago
Will, that it's racist is an opinion. It's okay if you don't agree -- that's an opinion too.
I say let's take them to court and let them argue that it's good journalism to give free air to a bunch of racists. :-)
Sue
· 1 year ago
Dave, it's an episode of the West Wing in real life. Sam gets a sneak peek at a potential ad and gives it back to the bad guy's campaign and it's all over the news - the very ad they didn't want to see being aired for free because Sam got p*wned. How I miss Adam Sorkin! And how right he was. Wag the ad.
McCain gets to condemn the ad half-heartedly but if can't control the Repub party, how does he claim to manage the country? The free play is part of politics and skirts the equal time rules. It's news, not taking political sides, they agree, so they can create the drama of the day. First the Supreme Court gave us a president who was hardly elected. Now it's the MSM playing their game and wondering why anyone blames them for the consequences.
I recall when we focused on the candidates, had a sense of moral righteousness about "personal issues," and never thought about race and presidents. I'm glad this particular tide has turned. It's an historic election and I'd love to see it end with that aura of glory that we had an African American man and an assertive, educated woman go down to the wire because one of them should be President.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
Sue - - just to reiterate, there has been no such thing as an "equal time rule" for the past 21 years (see wiki link in my comment above)
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
Heh-heh, well, only problem there is that courts don't decide what's good or bad, only what's legal or illegal. And sadly, that's exactly the argument they (the media) would make, even if they are engaged in committing bad, awful, terrible journalism.
rolandksmith
· 1 year ago
I'm of the personal opinion that ad's, no matter the subject, are not news and shouldn't be a part of a newcast in any medium. No matter if it's an ad for an automobile or an ad for becoming a space tourist, or an ad for (or against) a politician, it's still an advertisement. By definition, advertisements are NOT news. Further, if a news department shows an ad as part of news, they are, again in my opinion, guilty of giving away air time and equal time should apply.
The irony of this is that TV, radio, and newspapers make their money from advertising. Why do they then give away free air time?
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
So by your rationale, AdWeek magazine would simply be forced out of business? C'mon... advertising can be newsworthy. Perhaps not so much in the case we're talking about here, but for example: First use of Beatles music in a TV ad, first TV commercial for erectile disfunction medicine, etc. etc. These were newsworthy events, if you're concerned with media and marketing.
So now you're stuck with trying to define just what is a "newsworthy event," aye, there's the rub.... good luck with that.
sameasiteverwas
· 1 year ago
"So by your rationale, AdWeek magazine would simply be forced out of business? C'mon... advertising can be newsworthy."
AdWeek is a trade magazine for people who produce advertising. New advertisements are news *to them*. Much the same way that a new John Deere tractor is news to farmers and would be covered in farm journals.
But that doesn't make the new tractor a Page 1 story in a general-interest newspaper, and the ad shouldn't be either.
rolandksmith
· 1 year ago
Hmmm... cutting a fine point does help to get to a definition. What's happening in advertising is certainly news to people engaged in the business of branding, advertising, and marketing. This discussion may be akin to Einstein's "Special Theory of Relativity" and his later "General Theory of Relativity".
Fair play and Equal time are, as you point out, neither relevant nor currently applicable. What does seem to have happened in most news departments in the mainstream media, is a shift towards making news rather than reporting news with the accompanying tactic of playing "Gotcha". That fosters an environment where a group, as in the specific situation being discussed, can prepare and air a blatantly biased advertisement which only flirts with the truth, knowing that mainstream media will pick it up and give them audience that they could never have bought otherwise.
Sometimes definitions come by defining what something "isn't". In my opinion, the circumstances I've described are not directly "newsworthy events." However, what could be newsworthy about them is that such tactics are being employed by fanatical groups and the pronouncement that they are NOT newsworthy and will not get further audience.
With that, I'm on to other things....
dave
· 1 year ago
This is a classic -- you're having an argument with yourself on my behalf. Is it any wonder that you cornered and humiliated me with your superior intellect and logic.
Will Cate
· 1 year ago
With myself? Hardly. I was just suggesting to Mr. Smith that while ads are not news, news can be about the ads. My opinion. We all individually define what is newsworthy in our lives.
Anyway, Dave, you're much smarter than me... you can code in C. Heck, I can't do that.
fdsa
· 1 year ago
It's always bias and illegal when it's the other guy...
Alex G
· 1 year ago
If drunken fans suddenly to start cashing out millions of dollars to run on the fields, the broadcasters would do a 180 in a blink of an eye. When a country is ruled by capital, everything and anything can and will be sold.
joe
· 1 year ago
It seems to me that you are making the classic left wing mistake here, Dave.
The only way your argument makes sense is if you consider people too stupid to think for themselves. If I follow your logic: 1. News organizations show attack ads. 2. Stupid people see attack ads, and are swayed by them, because they are stupid. 3. Smart people -- people like you, and responsible journalists -- most not let the stupid people see those ads.
Maybe people are smarter than you think. Maybe they will see the attack ads and that will make them vote against the attacker. Maybe not, but this line of reasoning is bullshit, if you ask me.
dave
· 1 year ago
The cable networks are making classic left wing mistakes -- giving welfare to Republicans with ads who are too lazy to go raise the money to run them. How are they ever going to develop discipline and good work habits if you always give them free air time instead of making them earn it!
brett
· 1 year ago
So any ad that mentions Mr. God Damn America is racist? Any quotations of his actual words are racist? Otherwise, care to explain why you would hold that opinion?
Nate
· 1 year ago
What news organizations? I'm not aware of any commercial TV news organizations in the United States.
CNN, MSNBC and Fox are just tabloids, exactly the same as the National Enquirer.
APR
· 1 year ago
The weird part is that I don't think that ad was ever made for air -- it's not 30 seconds long.
a random John
· 1 year ago
Similar to how that dick Huckabee had a press conference in which he announced that he had produced an attack ad against Mitt Romney but thought better of it and scuttled it. Then he proceeded to play the ad for the press (their mouths agape) who despite realizing the irony of the situation played it over and over again during the following days?
sergeiyakovlev
· 1 year ago
This ad attacks Obama only in the minds of those who don't care about the real story. Nobody to blame but ourselves. We believe everything we're being told. We are too lazy to check the facts, passing this on to others. However, nobody should be expected to do this work for us, neither the goverment, nor the media. Checking facts is our personal responsibility.
In fact, it is our duty. "The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Well, in this day and age, it's all about the information. And the most powerful arms we can possibly bear with us is our own critical thinking. Checking facts is our duty.
The sad things that are happening now will always happen. It's not the sad state of media. It's the sad state of our ability, or even desire, to seek truth. What do we choose to believe? Do we choose at all?
All Comments
However, you and many, many others who have large audiences, including entertainers, also endorse candidates and use their celebrity status to promote their own agendas. How do we monetize or regulate endorsements such as these or the ones you mention?
This is a debate not even ABC could screw up. Well .... maybe.
At the risk of mistaking a serious question for rhetoric, the short answer is: no.
The long answer: The McCain-Feingold law in general does not restrict news and news-analysis programs from covering campaigns in any way they choose. Oh sure, there's a provision to bring a court-challenge, but I don't think anybody's actually tried it yet. It would require something really egregious, like a news anchor looking right at the camera and shouting "VOTE FOR XXXX" ... The message can't be implied. It must be explicit. And, of course, the whole notion of "equal time" on the airwaves ended in 1987 (thus giving broadcast media the same editorial freedoms print media have always enjoyed).
As for the NC GOP ad being "racist," I'm not sure how one arrives at that. It's an in-your-face cheap shot, to be sure. But to say that it's racist is essentially to imply that any criticism of Obama == racism. Indeed, I expect this to be one of Team Obama's main tactics between now and November.
If I say "I don't like Obama's Senate voting record," that alone doesn't make a racist. But nor does it if I say "I don't care for the people with whom Obama associates." It's about character, not race. It's Democrats, this time, who are making it all about race.
I say let's take them to court and let them argue that it's good journalism to give free air to a bunch of racists. :-)
McCain gets to condemn the ad half-heartedly but if can't control the Repub party, how does he claim to manage the country? The free play is part of politics and skirts the equal time rules. It's news, not taking political sides, they agree, so they can create the drama of the day. First the Supreme Court gave us a president who was hardly elected. Now it's the MSM playing their game and wondering why anyone blames them for the consequences.
I recall when we focused on the candidates, had a sense of moral righteousness about "personal issues," and never thought about race and presidents. I'm glad this particular tide has turned. It's an historic election and I'd love to see it end with that aura of glory that we had an African American man and an assertive, educated woman go down to the wire because one of them should be President.
The irony of this is that TV, radio, and newspapers make their money from advertising. Why do they then give away free air time?
So now you're stuck with trying to define just what is a "newsworthy event," aye, there's the rub.... good luck with that.
AdWeek is a trade magazine for people who produce advertising. New advertisements are news *to them*. Much the same way that a new John Deere tractor is news to farmers and would be covered in farm journals.
But that doesn't make the new tractor a Page 1 story in a general-interest newspaper, and the ad shouldn't be either.
Fair play and Equal time are, as you point out, neither relevant nor currently applicable. What does seem to have happened in most news departments in the mainstream media, is a shift towards making news rather than reporting news with the accompanying tactic of playing "Gotcha". That fosters an environment where a group, as in the specific situation being discussed, can prepare and air a blatantly biased advertisement which only flirts with the truth, knowing that mainstream media will pick it up and give them audience that they could never have bought otherwise.
Sometimes definitions come by defining what something "isn't". In my opinion, the circumstances I've described are not directly "newsworthy events." However, what could be newsworthy about them is that such tactics are being employed by fanatical groups and the pronouncement that they are NOT newsworthy and will not get further audience.
With that, I'm on to other things....
Anyway, Dave, you're much smarter than me... you can code in C. Heck, I can't do that.
The only way your argument makes sense is if you consider people too stupid to think for themselves. If I follow your logic:
1. News organizations show attack ads.
2. Stupid people see attack ads, and are swayed by them, because they are stupid.
3. Smart people -- people like you, and responsible journalists -- most not let the stupid people see those ads.
Maybe people are smarter than you think. Maybe they will see the attack ads and that will make them vote against the attacker. Maybe not, but this line of reasoning is bullshit, if you ask me.
CNN, MSNBC and Fox are just tabloids, exactly the same as the National Enquirer.
In fact, it is our duty. "The strongest reason for the People to retain the Right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Well, in this day and age, it's all about the information. And the most powerful arms we can possibly bear with us is our own critical thinking. Checking facts is our duty.
The sad things that are happening now will always happen. It's not the sad state of media. It's the sad state of our ability, or even desire, to seek truth. What do we choose to believe? Do we choose at all?
Regarding Rev. Jeremiah Wright, some of you might like to see his recent interview with Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watc...
Peace and happiness to everybody.