How does the news get reported in your country?

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

This is a post that is obviously by an older person.

In the USA where I live there is 24 hour a day news reports. The news media reports on things that are based on speculation, rumors, and so fourth. For example, they report that something has been confirmed; then, they say it was not confirmed as reported earlier. There are reports of new iPhones, etc., that are found to be nothing but rumor.

I miss the days when there were only 2 or 3 one-hour news reports each day. We heard more facts in those news reports than the 24 hours a day of speculation and rumors.

I can see sites like theguardian.com and euronews.com. However, that doesn't give me the full picture. So, how does the news get reported in your country?

Remember that politics and religion are not permitted on this forum. Edit: And the mods know I won't care if they close or jail this thread if it gets off topic.

[buzzingrobot]

In the days of those short evening TV newscasts in the U.S., the networks did not expect their news divisions to make a proft. That gave their news staffs the freedom to report objectively. (Objective does not mean accurate. It means submerging your own opinions and biases before you write the story.)

That changed some years ago when the U.S. networks required that news division make money, just as if the news was a situation comedy or pro wrestling. Networks care little about journalistic integrity. As a result, we've seen the proliferation of talking heads and pundits yapping at each other. It's cheap to produce, it sells lots of advertising, and they can slap a "news" label on it. But, don't believe it. It is not news. It's talk radio with pictures.

Part of getting the "full picture" is knowing, through research or experience, what interests a news source is likely to side with, either openly or implicitly. E.g., The Guardian is on the left side of the UK's political spectrum. The Daily Telegraph is on the right. Putin controls almost all TV and radio in Russia. Watching Moscow TV, then, for impartial and objective news is probably futile. But, it's a very good way to see which way the wind is blowing in the Kremlin.

I consistently find BBC News to be the best single source of international news. I've been going to their site for years over morning coffee. i believe they have more reporters and stringers in more locations than any other news organization.

Only a very few U.S. news organizations maintain any permanent international presence at all. Most of their reports are based on services like Reuters, AP, Agence France Press, etc., that they subscribe to and are fed into their computers. When there is a flap someplace, it's not unheard of for the reporter who's hurriedly flown overseas to stand up and read a report prepared in New York.

[QIII]

In the US, "news" has become hollow, non-nutritive pabulum served up at the corporate pap for a buck.

[ibjsb4]

In the US, "news" has become hollow, non-nutritive pabulum served up at the corporate pap for a buck.

Ouch

Some of us yanks got to other countries to get a less bias view or maybe just to see how its done on the other side of the pond :)

[ian-weisser]

If you look for quality news, you can find good, fact-based reporting. Good, fact-based reporting is not very profitable. And though most people claim to want it, their actions differ from their claims.

If you just turn on the TV, you will get noise. Noise is highly profitable. And very popular, despite people's claims to the contrary.

One lovely feature of the internet is that good, fact-based reporting usually links back to source documents.

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

In the US, "news" has become hollow, non-nutritive pabulum served up at the corporate pap for a buck.
each with there own political spin and bias on the scale of ~20/10, details of which we will not discuss here as it is against the rules

[PJs Ronin]

(Australia)
All news outlets have had a hell of a time remaining relevant since the internet exploded into our lives. Those bastions of news, the daily newspapers, lost their classified advertisement cash cows and are now battling to survive. Presses are closing left, right and center, mastheads are merging or passing into history as they all try and find their niche. TV news has been distilled down to "if we have vision of an event, it's news" so the third item on the nightly news is a youtube clip of a kitteh being rescued. Note: I like kitties so this is important to me, but.

With the condensing of news sources into fewer corporate hands we are all subject to the opinions of the likes of Murdoch et al who are desperately trying to outrun the onslaught of the internet in general, and Google in particular. Has anyone else noticed that the internet has changed the concept of a headline from:
"Hindenberg: Giant Airship Fire: Terrible Loss of Life", to
"Blimp Goes Bloop: 10 Things You Need to Know About Getting Airborne".
The reason being of course is that the core of a news item is its headline. Give the reader this info in a headline and they won't click through to the bulk of the story and all that lovely advertising. So headlines are no longer headlines.

I have 6 news outlets tabbed in Firefox (one for each major newspaper from three states here in Oz, one 'national' paper, the ABC (govt funded independent broadcaster) and the Guardian from the UK). The three state based papers not only run the same stories, but have the same bylines. I was unaware of this until the internet allowed me to make this comparison. Note: I have removed those sources.

Just like OP, my final comment is indicative of my age. The reporters we see now on the nightly TV news appear to have not graduated high school... or at least with passes in subjects that actually matter; finger painting does not matter, not does interpretive dance. Most of these young folk cannot string sufficient words together into a coherent sentence to present 'facts'; and isn't that what news is about, facts not opinion or supposition.

Quality news coverage is still available, you just have to dig.

[pretty_whistle]

I live in the U.S. and I know what you mean by quality news. I wished this were the old days too. Nowadays they speculate, give their opinions, etc. and call it "news". That's a joke.

[coldraven]

In my opinion TV news is condescending claptrap. For example if there is a bus crash on the highway they will show you a stock image of a bus. Well I know what a bus looks like!!! (I nearly wrote the last sentence all in caps.)
Another example, this one is true. A school made trip to a ski resort in Europe and unfortunately some of the pupils died in an accident. The trip was cut short and returned by bus to the UK only to be met by hoards of reporters. They wanted to get shots of distressed pupils meeting their parents. Maybe I'm unusual because I have an imagination, I don't need to see pictures I can imagine how upset these kids were.
It was also an invasion of their privacy at an upsetting time.

As for radio, we just get (cannot mention the P word) talking rubbish and spin and never answering a direct question.

YMMV :)

Edit: I got so annoyed at my TV that I gave it away years ago. It was the adverts that irritated me the most.

[Elfy]

This is a post that is obviously by an older person.

In the USA where I live there is 24 hour a day news reports. The news media reports on things that are based on speculation, rumors, and so fourth. For example, they report that something has been confirmed; then, they say it was not confirmed as reported earlier. There are reports of new iPhones, etc., that are found to be nothing but rumor.It's much the same here unfortunately. The good thing is you can watch the news at any particular time during an hour, say minute 10 - 20 then when you come back later to catch up - miss out minutes 10-20 :)



I miss the days when there were only 2 or 3 one-hour news reports each day. We heard more facts in those news reports than the 24 hours a day of speculation and rumors.I miss the days when we had 3 or 4 channels and nothing on them between midnight and 3pm ...



I can see sites like theguardian.com and euronews.com. However, that doesn't give me the full picture. So, how does the news get reported in your country?I try to see the same story in sites with different political viewpoints - somewhere in the middle lies something a bit closer to the truth.

In general I think that the best that anyone can do is not read news in one place.

I use the guardian often, the bbc, try to look at some of the right wing sites.



Remember that politics and religion are not permitted on this forum. Edit: And the mods know I won't care if they close or jail this thread if it gets off topic.I'll do my best :)

[mastablasta]

watching CNN, Sky, even BBC . the news are reported ridicuoously to me. might have been, could have been, we have no confirmaiton. then what the hell are you then blabbing on about?

the format was taken by one TV house here in one of their channels. sensationalist, maybe, could be possibly news. their other channel only does it 2 times a day or is it 3 times. however the national TV has 3 news with one main one and that one is actually good. in fact it's the only good thing about that state TV. the news are usually verified, impartial and mostly only th eimportant stuff. but lately they started introducing US model here and there.

for (often) blatant propaganda "soviet style" iin english one should check Russia Today. Doesn't matter what topic it is they would always have some "obscure" expert no one ever heard about working on some small university (if even) and then they present it as fact other media overlooked. it's really funny in a way. the biggest issue is that you can't really separate well their propaganda pieces from real articles which are actually not that bad.

[bapoumba]

I listen to radio. Public, add free (I cannot stand adds on TV, I really hate adds on radio), French radio (France culture namely). One report each hour, for a few minutes. I get news in the morning over breakfast and at night when I come home, and this is the radio station in the car. Each morning and evening, they have live talks about society in general (includes politics and stuff) with top notch journalists and participants. Sometimes the discussion goes way over my head, sometimes not. Within my skill fields (biology, internet and such) I can tell you talking is relevant and smart.

I'd rather fill my ears with bright talks that I do not understand than toxic blabla, rumors, misinformation or even blatant lies. I truly believe that being fed up with current TV is toxic. If I wan a TV report, I watch Arte. 15 min news at 20:00, back to basics.

Your brain becomes what you give it to feed upon.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

After reading the responses to my post it seems finding quality news is a common problem.

[Elfy]

yep

I think the trick is to read/watch as many different viewpoints to get something akin to close to the truth - just about :)

[Elfy]

I...

I'd rather fill my ears with bright talks that I do not understand than toxic blabla, rumors, misinformation or even blatant lies. ...
Your brain becomes what you give it to feed upon.

too true

[buzzingrobot]

1. Don't confuse "news' with "truth" because even historians don't agree on that.

2. Understand that the reasons a source is airing/publishing a story, how and why it is written, how it is treated -- given prominence or tucked away -- and who the source intends to be the primary target audience are just as informative as the mythical "objective straight news".

3. If you don't come to terms with Point 2, then you are just relying on someone you trust, for vague and indefinable reasons. The entire point of packaging news is to make it appear credible and trustworthy, even when it's little more than propaganda written in some government ministry.

4. Americans: Stop watching cable "news". It's just broadcast fodder intended to play to your biases and assumptions, make you angry about the other side, and keep your eyes glued to the screen.

[philinux]

Just dont bother with the dailymail website. ;)

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Even the technology news for Microsoft, Apple, Android, Google, etc., are biased by fanboys. Then the opinions I see in the US news is different from what I see in the European news. I learn more about the societies than I do of the technology. :)

Unfortunately my knowledge of languages other than English is limited, and translation software is not ideal based on what little I do know of German and Spanish.

[SuperFreak]

I used to read massive amounts of news online thanks to Google News which pulls feeds from different sources. I also watched the BBC news religiously at 6:00pm each evening.
My wife told me for a long time that the focus on news was not particularly good as I was caught up in demoralizing discordant stories that were just that - stories. The truth about the world around us is not likely to be found on TV or the internet because those media are influenced heavily by commercial interests and personal views of the owners and boards of those news agencies. I stopped watching TV news and rarely go to online sources except those associated with finance; this happened about 1 1/2 years ago. I find my life quite a bit less stressful than when I was caught up in the news . I am not trying to deny what is happening around the world I just find I am more at peace knowing about my own local environment which I have some control over than events halfway around the world which I have no control over

[Habitual]

There is nothing on TV.

[grumblebum2]

I avoid any news program that runs longer than half an hour.
Watching the frivolous banter of "celebrity" news anchors or the guest experts
on topics like "how to put your pants on correctly" makes my brain bleed.

[bashiergui]

One lovely feature of the internet is that good, fact-based reporting usually links back to source documents.That's my modus operandi. I drill down to the original source and read that. I figure every layer of opinion overlying the original source decreases the believability of the conclusion by an order of magnitude.
I try to see the same story in sites with different political viewpoints - somewhere in the middle lies something a bit closer to the truth.Exactly.

[Mike_McHrl]

I find the local news is awful, and always pushing its own agenda. I think you need to get your news online. If you watch news on TV, you get THEIR version of the news. If their a democrat, you get a democratic view of the issues. And they do not show any interesting video. They always say "this video contains graphic content", and then they show a short clip of a plane flying over open land, and people with gun. Wow, really graphic.

[john_burns2]

News here in the UK can be reported differently between local and national press. For instance, some years ago a 15yr old was shot (and killed) on a local park (gang rivalry was to blame) Local paper focussed on the fact that he was a 15 yr old schoolboy, always using the same photo of him in his school uniform.. National press however, got photo's of him from Facebook, showing him in his ordinary teenager clothes, posing like some would be gangsta. Local paper reports "He was a typical, innocent schoolboy. Hard working studious etc. National newspaper portrayed him as heavily involved in gang life and took quotes off his FB wall, which painted a very different picture to the one in the local paper.

[buzzingrobot]

News here in the UK can be reported differently between local and national press. For instance, some years ago a 15yr old was shot (and killed) on a local park (gang rivalry was to blame) Local paper focussed on the fact that he was a 15 yr old schoolboy, always using the same photo of him in his school uniform.. National press however, got photo's of him from Facebook, showing him in his ordinary teenager clothes, posing like some would be gangsta. Local paper reports "He was a typical, innocent schoolboy. Hard working studious etc. National newspaper portrayed him as heavily involved in gang life and took quotes off his FB wall, which painted a very different picture to the one in the local paper.

Much the same would happen here in the States. Local/neighborhood papers depend on sales to and ads targeting families whose kids went to school with the victim; national papers sell and advertise to other folks. Cable TV talk shows and propagandists who wanted to make political points out of it would use one or the other photo and cast the victim in one or the other persona depending on their position on the spectrum.

[PondPuppy]

Well, the OP asked "how does the news get reported in your country". I would say, "poorly." (For me that's Oregon, USA. And for the record, I too am an older person.)

That's mostly an impression, because I don't watch TV at all, and listen to very little radio. Like Bapoumba, I can't stand the advertising. So, other than seeing faces jabbering soundlessly on screens at the gym, and a few sessions at other peoples' houses, I really don't know much about TV news. You guys don't make it sound very palatable... :???:

Like many, I visit a small list of national and international news websites -- BBC, NY Times, Der Speigel, Al Jazeera, the Guardian. I'm aware that each site has a set of biases. But I seem to see more detailed reporting from closer-to-source services. I also read a local newspaper for local news, though not every day. And phys.org for science.

I'm curious: do others find spoken news reporting slow and dull? I process written information well, and, like many people, I read much faster than people speak. The few times I have seen TV news it seems like the speaker takes forever. I could have read five versions of the story with maps and images in the time it took him or her to deliver a string of mostly trivial details interlarded with cliches. Does anyone else experience this?

[deadflowr]

I watch the evening news, I read the daily newspapers. I read local weeklies.
Most of my life, we have been getting the National Enquirer. Sadly, the above three have turned more and more into that tabloid, or quite similar, in many ways.

The best news reporting I ever get is on the radio, in between set lists.
(I only listen to classic rock stations, so the news is very brief)
It gives me exactly what I want, something happened and that's all that really mattered, no fuss no muss.

[sammiev]

How does the news get reported in your country?

Hmmmmm In this one horse town you can tell one person something well having your morning coffee and it's all over town before you start your second coffee. ):P

[john_burns2]

How does the news get reported in your country?

Hmmmmm In this one horse town you can tell one person something well having your morning coffee and it's all over town before you start your second coffee. ):P


Same here at work.. If I want something to get back to management, I know just who to tell, (in the strictest confidence, of course) :p:p:p

[Erik1984]

Not a direct answer, but I think it's relevant:

http://www.dobelli.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Avoid_News_Part1_TEXT.pdf (PDF)

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

@Erik1984

He has an interesting opinion; however, I will say no more about it.

[holden87]

So, how does the news get reported in your country?



In my country, it's mostly copy/paste "journalism" lagging a few days behind AP, Guardian, NYT, Reuters etc. Except if there's immediate news, like MH17 the other day, then they c/p it within an hour :). Reporter quality is going severely south, and everyone seems to focus on the quantity of news. Anyways, news is not even news anymore, that's why I read only one local weekly magazine which offers some true critical articles and exposés, and that's about it. But in the www days, I use mostly Guardian for the news, as i speak english and they're ahead of schedule compared to my local media.

[buzzingrobot]

...AP, Guardian, NYT, Reuters etc...

It's very expensive to maintain an international staff of reporters and stringers so your organization can quickly report the news, as it happens where it happens. That's why those organzization, plus the BBC, AFP, and a very few others, are the only institutions who do it.

Wire services like AP and UPI, the UK's Press Association, and Reuters, were created to sell news to subscribing newspapers in the hinterlands. The typical Boondock Bugler has never been able to afford a few hundred reporters scattered around the country, much less the globe, waiting for something to happen.


...news is not even news anymore,

Well, news keeps happening. Most anything that calls itself a "news" broadcast these days is lying, though. They wouldn't make a profit if they actually presented real news. So, they don't.

[holden87]

It's very expensive to maintain an international staff of reporters and stringers so your organization can quickly report the news, as it happens where it happens. That's why those organzization, plus the BBC, AFP, and a very few others, are the only institutions who do it.

Wire services like AP and UPI, the UK's Press Association, and Reuters, were created to sell news to subscribing newspapers in the hinterlands. The typical Boondock Bugler has never been able to afford a few hundred reporters scattered around the country, much less the globe, waiting for something to happen.



Well, news keeps happening. Most anything that calls itself a "news" broadcast these days is lying, though. They wouldn't make a profit if they actually presented real news. So, they don't.

Mostly agreed. Only thing is, when i'm talking foreign news, there used to be good correspondents in different 'place-to-be' countries, giving precious insight. Now, seemingly cutting costs, they're basically copy/pasting.

[buzzingrobot]

Mostly agreed. Only thing is, when i'm talking foreign news, there used to be good correspondents in different 'place-to-be' countries, giving precious insight. Now, seemingly cutting costs, they're basically copy/pasting.

There are certainly fewer. U.S. TV news will often show a correspondent doing a standup overseas while reading a script prepared from secondary sources in the U.S.

The key, at least for U.S. networks, is that the networks originally did not expect their news divisions to make money. That allowed some journalistic integrity. Some years ago, after cable began taking their audience, all the commercial networks demanded the news divisions turn a profit. That's when TV news became talk radio with pictures.

also, frankly, few people are interested in or know good news reporting when they see it and fewer are willing to pay for it.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

It's very expensive to maintain an international staff of reporters and stringers so your organization can quickly report the news, as it happens where it happens...

I think you have a valid point. Even my local news is a cut&paste from the organization that can afford to maintain the staff.

[Paulgirardin]

By quacking morons on the TV

[bashiergui]

By quacking morons on the TV
LOL

A 4-page thread summed up perfectly in 6 words.

Can we close the thread? Pretty sure he just won it.

[donkeyoatmeal]

Instant on twitter

[linuxyogi]

As you India is a multi party democracy. The national news channel (owned by the government) reports in favor of the ruling party which may change every 5 years.

Similarly, all regional parties have at least one channel which works tirelessly 24/7 to report in their favor.

There are a few channels which tries to report the news honestly.

New news channels are being launched at a ridiculous rate and the sad part is nobody watches the small ones.

[mike225]

Facebook, online

[egrrenov]

in France works well

[mips]

Not the Nine O'Clock News