Just curious. Why is anyone at all surprised at anything that ends up on any news show?

[NRaleighLiberal]

It is hard for me to know if it's always been this way, or it just comes with age (wisdom? realization), or it is the injection of big right wing money and ownership.

We've used our TV only for movie watching 99.5% of the time for 7 years now. The only way I know how truly bad (and predictable) it is is from what I read here, and what friends tell me.

It still strikes me as if this is disappointing (of course it is - but disappointment only happens if one expects something different or better) and often surprising to lots of folks here.

But for as long as I can remember (when we used to watch) the stakes were always loaded against Democrats - be it talk shows, Sunday news shows, cable news shows (with rare, unique exceptions). On those rare occasions I listen to the radio it is NPR - and it strikes me as the same there.

I have no answers - no idea what if anything will change it back to the straight news of the Cronkite/Brinkley/Huntley days. Or perhaps it was slanted back then but I was too young to notice?

TV to me seems to be nothing more than a tool to sell products through advertising - and for the will of the network owners to be pushed down the throats of the viewers. Add "reality" TV to the mix - and you have a country where a reality show buffoon like Trump can actually presume to be worthy of the office of the president.

Call me skeptical or cynical (I am often the former, and often veer into the latter. That's when I head for the garden!

[spanone]

1. cause some of us were around when reporting the news was a noble profession.

the news departments were never revenue generators.

they were there to inform and report.

they are now totally compromised.

i don't think a democracy can exist without an honest media.

that's just propaganda.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. exactly, which is why we turned it off. we prefer to form our own thoughts

and actually try to analytically think about things.

[MrMickeysMom]

3. This is an easy one for me...

Everything started changing when we didn't have guts enough (under Bill Clinton) to have equal public radio. The Rush Limbaugh's of the 1980's helped corporatism over what really belongs to the public - airways.

We are well controlled by the oligarchy now NRL… I should say more accurately, the message is controlled… then some of us follow and say, "yeeaah" after every auto suggestive piece of tripe.

I used to watch early cable TV when Ted Turner first owned it. Linda Ellerby was the last overnight show that turned me on. It's faded to black on cable, sans a few stations (C-SPAN, Al Jazeera, BBC America, Pilot and that's about it)

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. yes, that's my recollection as well. thanks for the response.

I am still trying to decide if it was Ronny Raygun (a vapid B movie actor as "president), or Bush ("I want a president I can have a beer with&quot that is catalyzing the devaluation of intellect and education, and raising ignorance to something to be cherished.

It's pretty bad, though...

[Ilsa]

5. My MIL had CNN on and they spent at least

Half an hour reporting on the Jared Fogle plea deal. Real overkill. But since it's about kiddie porn and the Subway guy, it's about ratings.

[MattSh]

6. And then, there's this...

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." - William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

[tk2kewl]

7. we need some employee-owned tv networks

[ismnotwasm]

8. I don't watch it

Or listen to talk radio--I can't stand either.

I think in part, the proliferation of information on the internet helped foster the almost-comedy-show feeling of the news. People used to rely on news and newspapers for information, the public, always easier to manipulate had limited information sources.

Now, it's not that we have too many news sources, but every quack, conspiracy theorist, hate-filled, attention-seeking type of news-panderer is available. There are also topical sources, or agenda driven ones.

I believe, and there are some studies on this, we look for news that backs opinions, not to have fully informed ones--this, hasn't really changed. Still, it's difficult to predict what will sway public opinion. One small incident can cause the 'the in a teapot' effect, while a larger incident that is overplayed can numb the public.

Yet even as the public warms to or rejects a particular spin, there is something to be said for the effectiveness of continual pressure--repeat a unverifiable claim-or even an outright lie often enough and many people will come to believe it to be true. Where this is problematic is in complicated areas and where accurate information takes actual work to obtain.

It's not that the often subjective truth isn't out there, it's that far too much of the public, spoon fed a daily diet of nonsense, used to having opinions supported in a kind of group think, doesn't bother to look for it.

I

[NRaleighLiberal]

9. that is exactly how I see things. It is terrifying to know that people are vulnerable to

exposure to repeated misinformation.

Great response - thanks!

[mmonk]

10. Everyone needs to go to the garden.

It is where eden is. It is where one feels oneness with the earth and universe and one can clear their head.

[NRaleighLiberal]

11. that's where I am typically found!