TV "news" programs are fast becoming "we don't know" programs. First, a "breaking news" announcement, then hours of "we don't know yet."

First a "we know" that a child's body has been found near the Anthonys' Florida home, then hours of "we don't know yet" whether it's little Caylee Anthony's body.

First a "we know" that there was a two-hour conference call linking Governor Blagojevitch with a number of others, then hours of "we don't know yet" who the others were or what they talked about.

et cetera, et cetera, et cetera �

The "news" programs have already morphed into "wonder what'll happen tomorrow" prognostications. Am I the only one here who'd prefer to hear what's known about what's already happened?

You are one smart man, Ken. I totally agree. If they don't have all the facts then they don't need to give us half the story. They are so worried they might get scooped by someone else. Heaven forbid!

I always wonder what real news that they're not mentioning while they go on and on, ad nauseam, with "we don't know yet."

I already don't know more than enough to suit me. I don't hanker to not know a lot more.

You are not alone. I want the who, what, where, when, and how. I have given up on TV "news" programs, particularly after the lack of honest reporting on all the election coverage. The "we don't know" programs are not as bad, but are still useless. I still can't figure out why the talking heads are considered experts. TV has become a morass of junk. What passes for humor is really just vulgar and gets laughs more from embarrassment. I miss the old shows like Bob Hope and Red Skelton where the humor really was funny. Of course I was a really, really young boy when they were on TV. :-)

by God, their (msm) tactics are ment to hook you then reel you in. They must think the suspence thing is good. Turns me off though.

It drove me crazy when (as a media spokesman for something), I'd advise the media that there would be a press conference to announce something, they'd all demand to know what. I'd try to patiently explain that announcing it was the purpose of the news conference.

That always ticked them off. They wanted to be able to tell people on tonight's news what we were going to announce the next day.

It ticked them off even more when I asked them what would be the point of us having a news conferences if they were going to make our announcements the day before.

I have flat given up on TV news, 99% of it is fluff and postulation. No real HARD news.

I HATE it when they give you several "coming up next" leaders, followed by 4 minutes of commercials, followed by ONE! news story, then the "leaders" all over again. I can only suppose they have a shortage of actual news to fill the time.

I chit you not- there is at least one station locally that does this.

I DON'T CARE "WHAT'S COMING UP NEXT"- JUST GIVE IT TO ME!!!!

The weather guys tick me off. Always predicting huge storms 10 days out, when will it quit raining (only rained for 18-24 hours), when will it rain (only sunny the last 4 days), etc.

As a farmer, I need accurate forecasts for the next 3-4 days. I can't get anything but hype for next week and they can't even get today's forecast right.

Dale

I've noticed that too. It is not News anymore. It's the Evening Speculation. What may,could,might,or might not happen and what that would or would not mean if it did or did not occur.

Even the Voyd brothers did better.

One said "It's gonna rain tomorrow."

The other said "No, it ain't."

They never missed.

ken. you must have forgotten that news today isn't really news. it is entertainment with a few possible facts. truth isn't and issue. first is always best, so we get opinion over facts from the onset. enjoy..........

Is that why they spend so much on fancy, artsy-fartsy graphics � to persuade us that whatever our lyin' eyes see and our stupid ears hear, they're really giving us news?

Formulating opinion, not reporting facts is what modern "news" is all about. The print media are the worst, network broadcast a close second.
While I do read papers, I rarely bother with broadcast news. It's odd, as a kid I used to cringe when the evening news came on, and would find something else to do. Then for many years, I loved the reports. Things have gone full circle, and I now really can't tolerate the grinning idiots.

I got permanently hooked on news about 1940 � My Weekly Reader and Current Events. Benjamin Franklin had already inspired me to be a writer or a printer. Keeping-up with the world's goings-on seemed The Thing To Do, and it was a bit of a thrill. The thirst remains, but the thrill is dying.

I'm just curious by nature, and constantly have to figure out how things work. Reading has always been as natural to me as speaking. Writing on the other hand I never had a skill or desire for.

I find it fascinating that Franklin was your motivation. You took your calling seriously, and your writing shows it. Your descriptive, no-nonsense style of writing should be the rule, sadly, it's the exception.

As a middle-schooler I used to get The Weekly Reader. I wonder if they were the same publication?

The "new"s is too "old" fashioned, anymore.

It's no longer news, it's show biz. And it bends further towards warping human perceptions than reporting with each passing moment...

Drip. Drip. Drip.

It's like Chinese torture.

A can't decide if the drip is an enema or a douche.

The effect, I think, is same as the morphine drip...

Between the constant "breaking news" announcements, and commercials, coupled with "We don't know yet".....I'm rather sick of the news media. Not to mention, most are left wing loony shows now a days.

About what I need to make it through a Williams, or Couric broadcast.

The London Symphony's Sir Thomas Beecham didn't like Ralph Vaughn Williams's monotonous "music" any better than I do.

After a Williams composition in rehearsal one day, he kept waving his baton at the silent orchestra � and asked a violinist "Why aren't you playing?"

"Maestro, it's over!"

Feigning surprise, Sir Thomas quickly looked closely at the score and exclaimed "Yes, thank God, so it is!"

An unidentified Country has just bombed the downtown New York Library, Hundreds injured... We'll be right back after this message from our sponsors...




It is show biz ya know....

So..... is there an economic opportunity here?

If "supply and demand" really works - what does that say about the American Public?

I quit watching local news a long time ago. Every now and then I'll turn it on and it'll instantly show me why I quit watching. They've never got anything of substance on there, just 30 minutes of which drug dealer got busted today or which mexican got caught molesting their 3 year old. I already know that stuff goes on in the ghetto, if I wanted to hear about it all the time I'd go watch it myself. The evening news has become like watching an episode of COPS, which I don't watch either.

Is it asking too much that the reporters be able to string together a complete, coherent sentance without referring to their notes? How about that thay actually understand what they are reporting?

I'm DONE with "the news" in all of it's forms. It's biased and uninformed, with no attempt made to investigate. I'm sure I'll miss an important even or two, but the really big stuff (like the next terrorist attack) will trickle through and I'll learn about it within a week. What's fast enough, considering there's nothing I can do about the course our country is taking anyway.

I also dislike the "sensationalism" in the news.

It's a lot like the Chicken Little syndrom

Last night on our local news they showed that story. "The skeletal remains of a three-year old have been found." Then they showed a PICTURE of Caylee Anthony, before going on to say that "police caution they have no evidence it is her."

If you were watching with the sound off, you'd think they found her. If you weren't paying 100% attention, you'd think they found her.

Much as I dislike her mom and think she DID kill her, it was irresponsible to play the story that way. That will tend to taint juries, etc., and could lead to issues down the road.

we were discussing this the other day in the thread about "Crisis de jour".

Half of the news, or maybe more, is not about what HAS happened, but about what MIGHT happen. The talking heads always posit their story in the direction they wish their agenda to go.

Ditto..

"Scoop" is the operant word regarding news today. What they're spreading has to be scooped up for disposal.

Years ago, I stopped watching, and I've almost stopped reading. I realized that what they were spreading wasn't news if it didn't affect me. Almost nothing that's broadcast really affects me, therefore it isn't news. Only a small part of what's printed in my local paper actually affects me, either.

I heard something on the radio while on my long road trip recently, and had to jot it down. The station had, as its slogan, "If you read about it, it's history. If you hear about it, it's news radio." That about sums them up: unless you are tuned in electronically, it isn't news. These days, it isn't news unless it's a forecast.

Maybe the words to replace the news, to describe the substance of the broadcasts accurately, ought to be the nexts.

� or the whats?

� or the gonnas � maybe.

I believe that at one time journalists and anchors performed an actual service by watchdogging the government and current events and keeping the public informed of all goings on of public interest. That changed as news outlets became realized as commercial enterprises and put the focus on making a profit rather than honorably reporting the news as it happened without imparting spin.

Don't forget about the "old"s, Ken.

News is plural of new. Supposed to be new things. They'll beat an old story to death for days on end as though there's nothing "new" worth reporting.

Diversion...