RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Rate the TV coverage(18 posts)

Rate the TV coverageAlpedhuez55
Mar 26, 2003 1:09 PM
They mentioned on the radio that Fox News has been leading the Cable Networks for ratings. I was a little suprise to hear that. How do you rate them as far as the quality of their coverage? Here is my rating:

1. MSNBC- I like Lester Holt who has handled much of the prime time coverage well. Brian Williams is OK. I also think they have some very good experts and opinion people. I forget the General's name, but he is the best with the maps I have seen.

2. Fox News - I do not like their anchors. Brit Hume should be their go to guy, not Shepard Smith. Smith should be on Extra or Entertainment Tonight. As a plus, they have shared a lot of live imbed reporter coverage from Sky News.

3. CNN - I have never been a fan of Aaron Brown. THeir coverage has been OK at times. THe experts are not as insightful as the other two cable networks. THe seem to have good information on all the different weapons, but not the best information on how they are being used.

I have not watched much major network coverage. But from what I have seen, I would go with the cable networks. BBC was good at the beginning. I think they have dropped off a bit. THey do have some good imbed reports though.

Mike Y.
Scott's coverage is best - after that...PdxMark
Mar 26, 2003 1:27 PM
hmmm... Fox News is worst... seems really jingoistic, almost William Randolf Hearst-like... when the chem facility at Najaf(?) was found, the anchor was asking the correspondent "Ok, so now chem weapons were found, but couldn't the Iraqis have taken the weapons earlier and hid them elsewhere?" The correspondent said "I wouldn't want to speculate..."

MSNBC & CNN about a wash.

ABC NEWS evening show, seems better than MSNBC & CNN - but have only seen a couple segments.

Reuters Raw Video (find through google) has some amazing videos online.

Al Jazeera English was fascinating... interesting to see another point of view...
Don't count on mine...sn69
Mar 26, 2003 1:57 PM
...It could be a while before I've got enough "ready for prime time" stuff to share again.

Personally, however, I'm trying to avoid anything broadcast that isn't NPR or Frontline. It gets too overwhelming and depressing.

I heard that Al Jazeera got canned off of the NYSE today. Interestingly, I heard it from my buds over there on the carriers. They were all in agreement that was a bad thing because it: a) wasn't very American, b) only lent credibility to the other side's claims of American hegemony, and c) they are using AJ for real time intel.
Worse than worthless.czardonic
Mar 26, 2003 1:52 PM
The coverage that I have seen mostly on CNN, MSNBC and for an hour or so on FOX has been pretty much even in terms of its uselessness.

95% of their coverage is devoted to self-congratulatory reminders of the "unprecedented live coverage" they are providing. Meahwhile, the fruits of all that embedded technology are crammed into the remaining 5%, and even then they manage to be repetitive. Did it not occur to anyone to set up more than a measly 4 fixed cameras in Baghdad?

Moreover, reporters who are depending on their subjects to keep them alive can't reasonably be expected to report objectively. Their sentimental cheerleading serves a purpose (perhaps even a valuable one), but it is not news.
usual patternmohair_chair
Mar 26, 2003 3:45 PM
This same thing happens with every big event, 9-11, hurricanes, earthquakes, etc. These phases can be clearly identified:

Phase 1: We know nothing, but dammit, we're live!

Phase 2: We know something, so we'll keep repeating it until we learn something else, and by the way, we are live!

Phase 3: We know just enough to start speculating on our assumptions and criticizing organization and leaders when our expectations are not met.

Phase 4: Is the media overdoing it? Everyone but us, of course.

We are deep into phase 3 and rapidly approaching phase 4. Watch for it. Live!
Agreedmoneyman
Mar 26, 2003 3:55 PM
I have a more than difficult time with Fox and the cheerleading, as well as CNN and the smugness of Aaron Brown. It appears that truth really is the first casualty of war. We are subjected to sensationalism from all sides. Reporting, for the most part, seems absent. Most are treating this like the Super Bowl.

$$
Good observation nmJon Billheimer
Mar 27, 2003 9:21 AM
Ridiculous speculation aboundsContinental
Mar 26, 2003 2:09 PM
Very little news converage. Huge amounts of conjecture. Much of the speculation and conjecture from the first 8 days has already proven to have been wrong from the outset. I'm using some of this to teach my 6 and 8 yr old sons and 10 year old daughter the difference between facts and fantasy. I think they understand the difference better than the talking heads. The news channels are no more effective at delivering the news than this board is.
yupgtx
Mar 26, 2003 3:07 PM
I don't even bother with the TV. Gets me too annoyed. Prefer the web.
too much fillerDougSloan
Mar 26, 2003 3:34 PM
They all are trying far too hard to stay on the air with war 24 hours a day, when there's about 1 hour a day of substantive news. The rest is mostly inane filler, with lots of retired guys speculating about what's happening. If you surf a bit, you can pick up actual news from the various sources. No one source is good enough.

Doug
Agreed nmPdxMark
Mar 26, 2003 4:22 PM
BBC accused of Bias from withinAlpedhuez55
Mar 26, 2003 4:22 PM
Paul Adams, the BBC's defence correspondent who is based at the coalition command centre in Qatar, complained that the corporation was conveying a untruthful picture of how the war was progressing.

Adams accused the BBC's coverage of exaggerating the military impact of casualties suffered by UK forces and downplaying their achievements on the battlefield during the first few days of the conflict.

"I was gobsmacked to hear, in a set of headlines today, that the coalition was suffering 'significant casualties'. This is simply not true," Adams said in the memo.

"Nor is it true to say - as the same intro stated - that coalition forces are fighting 'guerrillas'. It may be guerrilla warfare, but they are not guerrillas," he stormed.

"Who dreamed up the line that the coalition are achieving 'small victories at a very high price?' The truth is exactly the opposite. The gains are huge and costs still relatively low. This is real warfare, however one-sided, and losses are to be expected," Adams continued.

The memo, which has been leaked to the Sun newspaper, was sent to BBC executives including the head of TV news programmes, Roger Mosey, and his radio counterpart, Stephen Mitchell.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,922206,00.html
==============================

I think from a media standpoint on whole, they are underestimating the efficiency of the ground troops. The casualties are tragic, but a lot more are being inflicted on the Iraqis is very high. Though I did hear the US is trying not to release those numbers so not to anger the Arab World any more than it already is.

Mike Y.
Well, I've been following the war...Dwayne Barry
Mar 27, 2003 6:14 AM
via the web at work on both CNN and BBC and it's clear that the BBC has way more of an "liberal anti-war" bias. It makes me laugh at all the talk of the liberal bias at CNN. If you want to see liberal bias go to the BBC.

At home I flip back and forth between FOX, CNN and MSNBC, but I seem always to end up back on CNN. I like Brit Hume though, and his political show (Beltway Boys?). I can't even watch Bill O'Reilly anymore, he's lost it. The other day he said we should "take-out" Al Jazeera after they showed the POW pics. Nevermind free-speech and the fact that Al Jazeera is based in the ally country of Qatar.
here's an article on that pointMJ
Mar 27, 2003 7:09 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,922676,00.html
Regarding the TV coverageNo_sprint
Mar 27, 2003 7:53 AM
If you're looking for facts, you've got to give it a good rating. Compared to what SN69 reported as being straight from the military, it's pretty much dead on. There were no surprises to me at least in what SN69 reported. Gotta admit, first hand reporting by a guy who is actually driving around in a tank with a forward division is fascinating and pretty tough to beat if you're looking for actual first hand accounts.

Opinion upon how it's being delivered is another story. Sure, there'll be a lot of bull and filler and talk talk when they're live 24/7. That of course, is expected.
Mine covers about 35 inches in my family room (nm)Captain Morgan
Mar 27, 2003 7:54 AM
sn69, best war correspondent. . .js5280
Mar 27, 2003 11:05 AM
Thanks for your posts sn69. Always informative and BS free. It's hard to judge anyone's credibility sitting here in Denver, CO USA, but I trust your commentary based on your history here and restraint in reporting what is fact, rumor, or falsehood. Keep up the good work! I wish you the best and sincere thanks to you and all the others serving our country.
Fav. Quote: "As reporters, our job is a lot like the soldier's."czardonic
Mar 27, 2003 11:10 AM
Or words to that effect this morning on CNN.