Slashdot Mirror
CBS and CNN Could Be Making News Together
crimeandpunishment writes "More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations. CBS and CNN, who have danced around the idea of a partnership for years, may be ready to move forward. Both news organizations have a lot at stake. Broadcast network news has a gloomy financial outlook, and CNN's ratings need a jump-start."
Yes, because what we need more of in this face, paced online environment is an old media behemoth to bring ingenuity and inventiveness to the scene!
Larry King guest starring on 60 Minutes.
No Thanks. I'll keep my dial set to the hotties and relevant commentators on FoxNews.
Maybe CNN could start reporting actual news instead of relying on their viewers to tweet "interesting" information about the latest celebrity breakups so they can read it out on air.
Jay Rosen on saving CNN
I'm not sure that everything he says is a good idea, but he's much more on the right track than CNN is. By combining two bad operations into one, you don't create anything good. All you create is one bad operation. These companies need to revamp their programming from the ground up.
60 Minutes is probably the last thing we have on major networks that we can consider journalism.
CNN is worthless trash and now I'm not a Fox news fan.
PBS's NOW, and Frontline are fantastic.. but they're PBS...
The 3 major news networks are a fucking wasteland of information.
Although I do like Rachael Maddow quite a bit.
Ha! Its coming true.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
How about we start with getting the sensationalists removed from the newsroom, starting with Nancy Gracy.
If they really want to retain viewers, they might... I dunno... try actual journalism and integrity. It worked for Walt.
I piss off bigots.
I suppose now they'll be able to compete with the Al Jazeera-Fox News-Walt Disney cartel. What? I wasn't supposed to say that? I'm sorry Mickey, please don't AAAARGH!
Funny 'cos CBS joined up with ABC and Fox News Channel to create the Network news Service in response to CNN over 20 years ago.
If this goes ahead the USA will have 1 big news service for TV news - maybe some sort of competition commission might block this?
Fabricate.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This is very heartwarming. It is about time we had some media consolidation. It will surely help remove the bias stemming from the extremely fragmented ownership and production base of the mainstream media of today.........
Real men don't need signitures!!!
When things go wrong, journos are quick to point out that they only report what is happening. That's the academic theory they've been taught, in any case.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
A large percentage of the links off the CNN homepage these days are to the ireport web site, and they don't even differentiate them anymore like they used to. As a general rule, I don't care to see amateur news reporting, and this has been one reason I've used CNN less lately. I'd rather have less news but have it be high quality.
The 3 major news networks are a fucking wasteland of information.
What did you expect from MPAA News?
When things go wrong, journos are quick to point out that they only report what is happening. That's the academic theory they've been taught, in any case.
Journos "make" news in what they choose to report and not to report. For example, which of the MPAA-controlled U.S. TV news organizations has reported on ACTA?
"CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy."
A democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.
The US is a constitutional republic. The constitutional goes about limiting the powers of government through 17 prohibitive clauses. (Interestingly enough, the general welfare clause which is used often to expand the federal government far beyond its intended power appears in the midst of a prohibitive clause in reference to taxation apportionment, but hey, why wouldn't James Madison backdoor the constitution just for kicks. Even though he explained in letters that an expansionist view of this clause would render the document useless, but hey, he wrote it, no biggie, modern judges know more than the author about its intent)
Also worth noting is the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was perceived by some as unnecessary as the government just wrought would be so limited the 10th would take care of the rest. Thank goodness for the enumerations we got since "life liberty property" and rights reserved is somehow vague.
Without the protection of a constitution we really don't have much, and majoritarian rule will undoubtedly lead to increasing internal strife. One could argue the march towards majoritarian tyranny is part of an overarching strategy bring about a crisis.
I also have an interesting history on Rule 22 / Filibuster in the Senate.
History of the Filibuster (Rule 22) in the Senate.
A long time ago any Senator could prevent any law simply by talking about it. Any senator could stop the move to cloture. This was by design. Its to make the little states have a lot of power in the face of the big ones because representation in the house is apportioned. Its a simple and clever concept to have a working bicameral house. Its designed to stop tyrants.
Then a certain president named Wilson who brought us gems like the Federal Reserve system by sneaking it through in a December 23rd vote where almost none of congress was present. (He signed it despite the sneak attack) Think recess appointment, but treasonous. A mark of a patriot.
Anyways, Wilson gets his way and the Fed has been using the hidden tax of inflation like a weapon against the people ever since.
Wilson also helped to dupe the states into the 17th Amendment, giving the election of Senators from the State legislature (making the State legislatures more or less irrelevant in the face of today's Fedzilla) and giving it to the people - more democracy (translates to bigger Federal government)! Major shift in power there. Less checking and balancing.
Fast forward to 1917. Wilson wants to bring America to war. The Senate uses a filibuster (then, by any member just not moving to cloture) to stop Wilson's war.
Wilson can't take no and wont tolerate the filibuster, so he has the rules changed. Now a move to cloture happens if TWO THIRDS agree to move. WAR BEGINS. Typical of a tyrant, they like that stuff so it distracts from the failing state and failing policies.
More who urinate on the Constitution come over the years it erodes to THREE Fifths.
First it was one senator.
Then 23
Then 35
See the trend?
As the constitutionality of the Fedzilla comes more and more out of bounds, the more they want to force the Senate to enact unconstitutional laws.
Now we have acting federal congressman saying:
QUOTE
"It is time to shut it down"
"God didn't create the filibuster, it's part of the Senate rules."
"It is outrageous"
"It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40."
"Less populous states end up with a disproportionate amount of power."
This was the design of the bicameral house. This is what the senate was supposed to do. Obstruct, slow down and make sure the disaffected get their say in Fedzilla lest they be crushed by majoritarian politics. It was designed to stop 51% wiping away the 49%.
Anyways, always irritating to see people adopt NEWSPEAK, especially in regards to the constitutional and the Framer's intent. Changing the meaning of words is the next best thing to banning literacy for tyrants.
Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
"More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations..."
The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments have also become increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Progressive agenda and the Obama administration has also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people look elsewhere for more objective sources.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I hope they succeed at making news by merging, because they sure as hell can't report it. Using the words "journalism" and "CNN" in the same sentence has got to be the oxymoron of the year. And CBS isn't that much better any more.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
With their combine number of people watching either, who cares? Evidently not the American public with what ratings they are generating. Maybe Soros will come and buy both networks so he has his propaganda machine in tact.
Do we just pull the plug?
Broadcast "news" consumes some extraordinarily valuable spectrum, a resource fairly tightly limited by the laws of physics. We have historically suffered it to do so because of its perceived value to our democratic society. If, however, it cannot demonstrate that value, there are much better things we could be doing with that scarce and valuable spectrum...
Yes, it is sooo expensive to make news..Who cares, it is the MSM, it is all weaksauce propagande anyway.
They used to have a policy that stated they'd have no celebrity reporters, à la MSNBC. Somewhere along the way that policy changed. I don't know the reasoning behind the change, though. Now we've got Anderson Cooper, Amanpour, Zakaria, etc.
What the hell are you tirading about? This has nothing to do with CNN/CBS. This is not a civics or Senate rules post
You do realize that because of another rule change the filibuster is now way to easy to do, right? You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote. That isn't the way it was when Madison was around, and according to your originalist view, he was all knowing. So let's go back to the point where you actually have to be willing to sacrifice to stand for your principles in the face of a majority.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
So are they going to call it "CNNBS"?
"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole
folks:
there was never a fabled era where news media was unbiased or high quality. look up the term "yellow journalism" from a century ago. the spanish american war was started with the "bombing" of the uss maine in havana that was just as much bullshit as iraq's supposed nuclear program. the newspaper "reporting" from a century ago makes fox faux news blatant warmongering agenda look like amateur hour
additionally, there never will be such a thing as unbiased news media. ever. here. in russia. in china. in europe. never, anwyhere
all news media has a bias. GET USED TO IT. accept it, and shut up with the bogus complaints
to criticize news media from a judgment of its bias or not simply means you yourself are hopelessly naive and ignorant about the reality of what news media is or ever could be. furthermore, it presupposes a frightening concept: that, in some magical realm, news media actually somehow could be completely unbiased... which means everyone would trust it implicitly. obviously, complete trust in your news media is far more frightening a concept than the fact news media has some bias
so the solution? get your news FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. read nytimes, bbc, npr, msnbc, cnn, hell even fox news, china daily, and the tehran times:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/
its all propaganda, its all biased, every news source you could ever possibly find. the only error you could ever make is trusting one and only one source of news: then you have failed
in this way, you will train yourself to have a good bullshit meter, and you learn to trust nothing. THAT's the only valid and intellectually coherent approach you could ever possibly have to news media, in this lifetime or any other
so please, shut the fuck up with complaints about quality and bias: such a basis for complaints only reveal your own inadequate grasp of the topic: what news media is, and how it should fit into your life
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There simply isn't enough real news to be covered by 24 hour TV, magazines, major network night news, and the news on the radio.
I'm not addicted to news or anything, but by listening to NPR on my 20 minute commute to and from work and the random stuff that flows on the internet (I don't visit the dedicated news sites), I'm as aware of the news as anyone.
Take for example the Toyota gas pedal thing. It was overplayed until I was sick of it, and then it just stopped. Was there a resolution? Or did it just stop being news as quickly as it became news?
CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy.
Fox News is not going out of business due to low ratings (or any other reason) currently. Fox News actually gets decent ratings and their ratings are steadily improving.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Click your remote a few times and you'll eventually hit upon MSNBC... they're about as liberal as they come.
As far as "deep investigations", well, why would these networks do any thorough investigating when the latest newsbyte comes from the next viewer email, complete with camphone video? Not saying it's right, just that seems to be the way everything is headed.
CBS News has a very conservative slant whereas CNN is more neutral. As far as news content goes there is a real conflict. ABC News also seems to be moving towards the right a bit as well. It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes. Right now America needs to be digging deep and exposing crooks and crooked companies.
The reason that we don't have any news service dedicated to "deep investigation and aiding liberal causes" is because most of the stuff that needs deep investigation is being done by organizations that are trying to aid liberal causes (for example, ACORN). So, any news organization that is dedicated to aiding liberal causes, doesn't want to investigate deeply (they might discover that Goldman Sachs is run by Democrats).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
41
That's the problem. CNN cares about ratings. That means they care about the short term at the expense of their reputation as a viable news organization.
Here's a quick fact for all of you TV executives: YOUR RATINGS ARE GOING DOWN BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE MORE OPTIONS. Quit trying to build this 'one size fits all morons' news channel and start actually reporting news. Hollywood gossip belongs on the Entertainment channel. Quick one-liners and talking heads belong on the Commentary channel. Crazy banners trying to get me all worked up over the world's dumbest terrorist (ya.. that guy from Pakistan recently) belong on the Fear channel. Instead, CNN includes all these things and then calls it the News channel. Seriously? CNN, right now, you are stupider than your audience. You target an audience of stupid people with even stupider content. Even stupid people want to get smarter.
Right now, if you watched CNN all day 24/7, you would not know who your lawmakers are, you would not know which countries are where or what their political system is, understand any non-simplistic political or social situations, understand social and market changes or direction, hear more than a single sentence from a single person at a time without her being interrupted, hear about any real dirt or corruption involved with any affiliated corporation, or understand the real 'world situation.' So, it's entertainment - not news.
And, you talking head assholes (that's pretty much every CNN reporter except Jack Cafferty), IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB TO SET THE AGENDA FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Quit trying to tell people how to think. Quit identifying any political candidates as 'non-viable' or 'a longshot' or 'fringe' before you talk about them without letting people decide for themselves. Quit having opinions on everything. Quit being condescending to less educated people trying to make a difference in less affluent areas. Quit fabricating shit out of nothing - If there was a device that people thought was a bomb, but was determined not to be a bomb, don't report that it was a bomb! Quit talking only about buzzword political issues like abortion, gun control, and prayer in schools - like they are the only political problems facing the US. Quit wasting our time.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
0+0 does not equal one (viewer). These two media outlets need to team up with something successful in order to survive. Just look how XM/Sirius has done since their merger.
Hey! who is the wise guy who put !newsfornerds as a tag for this story?...
Maybe it is a sign of the times when two historically big news organizations coming together is no longer nerdy enough for people to watch or care about.....or discuss..
That psychic at Lisa's Wedding wasn't far off! This partnership means we're halfway towards CNNBCBS (A Division of ABC).
If there's one thing that the founding fathers certainly would balk at, it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.
Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.
The filibuster rule made sense when there were only 26 senators -- as the number climbed to 100, it became increasingly obvious that it was no longer suitable, as a grandstanding politician could effectively block any piece of legislation, which was increasingly probable as the size of the Senate grew.
Similarly, advances in communications and transportation have made state lines increasingly irrelevant (your rant is a "states rights" thing, right?). It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance. The states have also done few favors to themselves, as their governments have proven time and time again to be corrupt and ineffective over the past several decades.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
Go Back to the Licking Beck's Blackboard you TeaBagging Douche!
If you really want to know what is going on in the US the best way is to login to BBC news website or get a subscription to BBCAmerican and watch your news there. ITN News is pretty good too and they have that hot Indian chic who is easy on the eyes.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
I would love to see the Pangea Report with Howard Handupme, or Edward R Hero.
Maybe even break between programming with a Muppet News Flash.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote.
That's the fault of the majority leader, not the minority that's using the filibuster.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
They're eating each other!
When Ron Paul is on cable news networks, and starts talking about the 1953 Coup de tat, he is cut off immediately and they break to commercial. Both Fox and CNN are guilty of this. I don't believe that we have Freedom of the Press in this country for that reason and many others. We have New York Times reporters thrown in jail for leaking information that can hurt the administration.
We need the country to wake their brain dead asses up and do a little bit of research rather than just following the talking heads of CNN and Fox. I think the 1953 Coup de tat has a little bit more historical significance than Britney Spears ass in a windshield. Why do they always seem to have time for the latter? Seems fishy to me.
Let's see...
CBS News is in the ratings tank, despite paying buckets of money to people like Katie Couric, one of the worst "news reporters" in television history. No one is watching there.
CNN's prime-time news show ratings are routinely beaten by cable infomercials shown at three in the morning. Nothing there either.
So, they're going to merge and hope this raises ratings?
What could possibly go wrong?
Joe Dougherty, Florida, USA
The words I thought I brought, I left behind. So, never mind.
Both had a point in time when their names meant something good, now
"It's a Sony" and "This is CNN" only server as warning labels.
And a merger? I'm sure it'll work out as well as MSNBC has, if you're going for
two single digit viewer-ships, one might actually make it to double digits.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
I know, I know. totally.
The Soviet Constitution of 1936 has a lot more rights in it! Rights ot education, right to vacation! Right to work! And the the USSR constitution changed all the time.
Way better, of course.
The founders wanted something like that for us, right!
That's the fault of the majority leader, not the minority that's using the filibuster.
Say what? It's a failure on the part of the majority when there is actually independent thought in the Senate? I wish we had more of it right now. Maybe it would stop some of the idiocy that's being portrayed as "governing" right now.
What do movies have to do with the News?
TV news tends to bury stories about legislation that helps the movie studios more than it helps the end users. Think back to 1998: did any channel show a balanced report on the Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? And how many channels have run a story about ACTA?
I work in the TV news industry and know quite a few people at CNN. If you ask any of them what their ratings problem is all about, Anderson Cooper's name inevitably comes up. He's mostly referred to as "Anderson Pooper." Folks are mystified as to why he continues to be their prime time anchor when he continuously talks in the ratings.
All of these news organizations need to remove the political slant from the reporting. Every since CNN turned into a liberal rag I quit watching it.
Got Code?
This coming from a young buck who is a big fan of "The Decemberists"
Yeah, you know what America's about, you've paid your fair share of taxes, you know what its all about.
Go on, tell the world how it should be run with your vast erudite knowledge accrued over many years of experience.
Texas is just like Massachusetts? Really? It isn't even much like California, three states away. Each state has a unique culture and a unique government. We have to preserve this because it lets citizens "vote with their feet" and leave state governments that are doing a poor job. Of course, since much of the USA is starting to buy into the idea of a global government, it's getting harder to people to even understand how important United States sovereignty is, much less state sovereignty. Why anyone would expect some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to give a crap about them is beyond me. Since I can't depend on a foreign bureaucrat to address my concerns, I'd rather keep the freedom and power to myself and my local community, where I can really effect "change I can believe in".
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Modded -1, overrated so that no adjective appears next to my comment's score, in an attempt to be sneaky — some people check out negative moderations to see who is doing what, after all. How much do you get for that line of work? I note that I've picked up another couple of Overrated mods elsewhere on comments which otherwise have overwhelmingly positive moderation. Stop following me around, douche.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"Democrats" as compared to progressive Democrats you mean?
I'll grant you that (most of) Texas makes sense as a state.
On the other hand, California is a bit harder to justify -- there's a pretty big divide between SoCal and NoCal, as well as between the people on the coast and the (relatively few) people further inland. The residents of Northern California arguably have more in common with Oregon than their fellow Californians to the south.
It's even harder to justify the existence of a state like New Jersey, where about 2/3 of the state (and about 80% of its population) is contained within either the NYC or Philly metropolitan areas.
DC's even more of a cluster$*#& -- a large portion of the population here live in Maryland, work in DC, and do their shopping in Virginia. How on earth are these people supposed to be represented and taxed fairly?
(Which brings up the tangentially-related issue of the fact that DC's 600,000 residents aren't represented in the legislature, and have no autonomy over their own laws. I'd take the States' Rights camp a lot more seriously if they supported DC Statehood.)
Copyright legislation is important to anyone who wants to make fair use of a copyrighted work. This includes time- and place-shifting, de minimis use in another work, use in parody or other criticism of a work, etc. And this includes far more than geeks.
Oregonians have nothing in common with northern California. I've lived in both. Oregonians are far more "hands off" and far less Statist/Authoritarian than Bay Area types.
State's rights have nothing to do with how DC is run. DC is not a state, so the States Rights / 10th Amendment people can't do anything about it.
Somehow I think if DC didn't have the demographics it did (as in, it was say, in the middle of a less Statist/Authoritarian state) you would be so hepped up to support the creation of another two senators and a congressman.
But that's all going to get solved by forcing Puerto Rico to join the Union at gunpoint.
So what you are in effect saying "I would take the constitution more seriously if they would add more senators and congressman from and area that holds my political beliefs"
Classic.
"Click your remote a few times and you'll eventually hit upon MSNBC... they're about as liberal as they come."
And that's the posters point. MSNBC is liberal in the sense that they present viewpoints that are less conservative than networks such as FOX. They aren't liberal in any real way.
oops typo...
I was not now, not ever.. a fox news fan :)
Who watches CBS news? I don't know a sole who does.
it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.
Because it's a very good document.
Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.
People say all the time, that much has changed. That is true, but just because we travel/trade/communicate far more effectively than we did 200 years ago, doesn't mean that the role of government should change at all.
It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance.
It's not really a surprise, but that doesn't mean it should happen.
The role of government, in my view, and as far as I can tell, in the view of the founders, is to protect freedom. That doesn't change just because we have new tools available.
Really. Or do you not think Keith Olberman or Rachel Maddow qualify as liberal? They're standard fare MSNBC programming. Maybe you can point me toward something liberal then, if that's not it.
CNN has more to gain from this than CBS. I've completely stopped watching CNN because it's become nothing more than a 24hr version of Entertainment Tonight, with its constant coverage of goings-on in the celebrity world. Maybe a partnership with CBS will inject some serious journalism once more.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
At least someone gets that all main stream news is made up.