This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
CNN Now Offers Free Online Video
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
Two can Live as Cheaply as One for Half as Long. -- Howard Kandel
CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:4, Interesting)
[CNN president Jonathan] Klein is making revolutionary changes at the cable network--scrapping signature broadcasts like "Crossfire" and "Inside Politics," shaking up his morning-show ensemble and his prime-time producing staff, and creating a new international news show at noon. These are only the first steps in a broad overhaul plan aimed at getting the pioneering and once dominant cable news network out of a seemingly perennial second-place finish, far behind Fox News.
And before anyone complains, you may be interested in at least considering:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Med ia.Bias.8.htm [ucla.edu]
which finds, in part
Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge Report, and ABCs World News Tonight) were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other measure found that Fox News Special Report is the most centrist.
and
Based on sentences as the level of observation (the results of which are listed in Table 8), the Drudge Report is the most centrist, Fox News Special Report is second, ABC World News Tonight is third, and CBS Evening is last.
Given that the conventional wisdom is that the Drudge Report and Fox News are conservative news outlets, this ordering might be surprising. Perhaps more surprising is the degree to which the mainstream press is liberal. The results of Table 8 show that the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, USA Today, and CBS Evening News are not only liberal, they are closer to the average Democrat in Congress (who has a score of 74.1) than they are to the median of the whole House (who has a score of 39.0). [...] the New York Times is twice as far from the center as Fox News Special Report, to gain a balanced perspective, one would need to spend twice as much time watching Special Report as he or she spends reading the New York Times. [...] Our results contrast strongly with the prior expectations of many others. It is easy to find quotes from prominent journalists and academics who claim that there is no systematic bias among media outlets in the U.S. [...] The main conclusion of our paper is that our results simply reject such claims.
Please note:
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample. (emphasis mine)
It makes me sad when people can't tell the difference between NEWS and OP-ED. Do people also have that same problem with the editorial page of the New York Times? Or just, say, Sean Hannity on FOX News? Is it acceptable to judge the news gathering and reporting capability of the Times by exclusively evaluating the content of its opinion page?
Further, one of the prime measures this report uses is the scoring for members of Congress by Americans for Democratic Action [adaction.org] (ADA), the self-described "nation's oldest liberal lobbying group".
Now, some might say that comparing news to members of Congress, be they Democrats or Republicans, isn't an effective measure (especially if you believe there is virtually no real difference between today's politicians). But at least take time to consider the report.
Various FOX News "watchdog" groups are a dizzying array of alleged inaccuracies in FOX News opinion and editorial shows, with almost nothing in actual N
Pressure from Fox? (Score:5, Interesting)
As for pressure from Fox, CNN has been losing in the TV ratings for some time, but the people at CNN (I worked there for a while) take great pride in the fact that the website has held its own and remains one of the most-visited news sources on the Internet. Foxnews.com, while definitely drawing a large audience, isn't even close to CNN.com, so the "pressure" on that front would be more of a keeping-up-with-the-Joneses deal for CNN.com than anything else.
MSNBC.com, however, is hardly a slouch when it comes to site traffic, and their free-video service has become very popular. If any significant pressure is being placed on CNN.com in the online space, it's from MSNBC rather than Fox.
This isn't about nails, or coffins. Micropayments (Score:3, Interesting)
Ultimately this will be about finding the right number, in both how much people will pay, and how many of them will. Once we have a solid online payment solution, whether it is Paypal or Google Wallet, or whatever, that allows us to spend relatively minute amounts (ie $0.10) with ease, this shouldn't be a problem.
...another question... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, is this a nail in the coffin of paid (news) content on television?
When you can get it for free (with ads) on demand on the internet will you pay to have it on TV?
CNN (Score:4, Interesting)
Mod parent +5 funny :-) (Score:4, Interesting)
HAH! I subscribe to 3 paid sites. Granted I'm a part-time investor, I find thestreet.com and wsj online to be quite handy. Also consumerreports.org for a small fee keeps me tuned to what is good out there and what is a scam.
Sure I can try and pirate the content out there, but that would require some searching and a guilty feeling for making/saving money at others expense and all these paid sites are very good in and of themselves. So paid content isn't going away any time soon.
Would I pay for CNN though? Something that I can easily find on TV? Probably not, but again by that logic, how many people watch CNN (a PAID cable channel) and still go out and pay the $0.35 for the Los Angeles Times? People will pay for what they perceive as good content, online or wherever.
Re:Nail in the Coffin? (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, paying for CNN online, when I can easily get it with cable, is a completely different story...not something I would do.
False Dichotomy (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean . . . it's not that hard. Intarweb is new tech, in that society had really integrated phones until about half a century after their invention, and we are still within three decades of the DARPA network. The market hasn't really figured out what works paid and unpaid on the internet -- hence the juicy webcomic discussion/controversy [penny-arcade.com] over whether or not micropayments work [goats.com]. But we can count on the fact that there will always be some stuff that is paid content (because the cost of development and provision far exceeds the potential income derived from advertising or marketing while providing the content free) and some stuff that is free. Things like the CNN streaming of live video is just the market settling -- and I guarantee that the streaming video will incorporate advertisements, so by some definitions, it's not exactly free. Seeing anything in the CNN decision regarding the larger issue of charging for content on the internet seems to me like sophomoric thinking -- unless I'm missing something?
Regards,
Moiche
Re:CNN (Score:2, Interesting)
"Your neighborhood is no longer safe. Is the government cheating you out of hard earned money? (Insert new crash diet) is sweeping the nation with reports of (success | hospitalization). More breaking coverage on celebrities that you'll never meet."
They realized that they don't need content anymore as long as watching becomes an experience comparable to a rollercoaster or new horror/suspense film. And now it can be delivered in high quality video. Pretty soon, news video pages will be virtual copies of iFilm.com
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just the difference between third-way european quasi-socialism and American quasi-capitalism. One of the underlying differences in cultural assumption is that Americans tend to think of the government as primarily something that's there to preserve their personal freedom and economic freedom, while Europeans might feel that the government is primarily something to look out for the welfare of the people. These are goals that are sometimes contradictory, such as when you ask the question, "should health care be open for competition, with maximum options for the patient, or should it be a state-provided service guaranteeing full access to everyone?"
I'm not sure there's a better solution here, but there's no denying the major differences between the two systems.
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course, this study has deep methodological problems that have been discussed to death in the statistical reporting community (See, e.g., Measuring Media Bias, Michael Cardwell, George Mason University, March 1, 2005). The consensus seems to be that the studied media outlets trail their consumer's tendencies in this area--that is, consumers do not, in fact, demand objective coverage, but rather demand coverage skewed to match their views, and media outlets tailor their product to consumer demands. And that changes in consumer bias precede (and drive) changes in media bias.
One of the major findings is that the American people are by and large more liberal than the members of Congress (in large part because conservatives tend to vote more than liberals, possibly because of age correlations), so comparisons to members of Congress don't tell you whether the media is skewed relative to the general population--and, in fact, it appears that it is not.
The second upshot is that, since the general population's conservative/liberal leanings are farther to the left than a study of members of Congress would show, it turns out that not only is the media on the whole in line with the public's stance, but that the New York Times is far closer in line with the public's beliefs than is Fox News.
Note that none of this is meant as a vindication of any journalistic integrity or objectivity; on the contrary, it seems to be basically a result of the media outlets following the dollar and trying to present the news as people want to hear it.
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:2, Interesting)
Thought Police (Score:3, Interesting)
Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News Special Report received a score to the left of the average member of Congress.
So? The average member of Congress is Republican right now. In fact, I suspect that there's also "a surprising liberal bias" among the general populace relative to the average member of Congress too.
There's supposed to be opinion drift in the media, and it's not supposed to be towards the pablum-like average. New directions and radical ideas have to be pursued. Progress beckons.
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:3, Interesting)
Which decade are you talking about? It can't be the current one. More Americans have identified themselves as conservatives than Liberals for a very long time.
A quick Google search turns up the Harris Poll [harrisinteractive.com] that been taken from 1968 to the present.
The most recent poll from this year shows "that conservatives continue to outnumber liberals by 36 to 18 percent but that the largest number of people think of themselves as moderates (41%)."
Now compare that to the self-identification of the media and of whom they voted for. It's instantly clear that the media in general is much more liberal than the people in the country.
About the only place that the New York Times possibly reflects the public's beliefs is in NY City itself and maybe SF, DC or LA.
Re:Your research study is CRAP (Score:4, Interesting)
If you keep saying that Abu Ghraib (sp?) and Gitmo are important national issues that should occupy our minds on a daily basis, that's a perspective that I disagree with. They matter, I'm not saying we shouldn't avoid abuses, but I just don't care much about a few non-citizens locked up in a prison someplace. If abuses are happening, correct them (investigate, fire people, whatever) and shut up.
Wouldn't it be bias if some news source only reported horrible crimes by illegal aliens? Every time an illegal alien did something wrong, you could make it a front-page article. I bet you could skew your readers' perspective about immigration policy if you do that for long enough (they might even... *gasp* advocate enforcing the laws that we already have).
Objective is when you look at something without perspective, which is pretty much impossible. People generally consider it to be more objective if a prominent view in favor and a prominent view against are both presented, but often times there are many viewpoints. And also you can sort of set up one side to look stupid by picking a stupid advocate.
To me, the worst kind of bias is when you inject opinion into news in creative ways. Consider the following hypothetical "news" story: "Senator A introduced bill B today. The bill does C, but critics say D, E, F, G, H
Anonymous sources get kind of rediculous also. In 2008, I fully expect to see as a headline somewhere "Candidate X is a poopy-head, sources say.".
Re:CNN is apparently in the midst of a new plan... (Score:2, Interesting)
The fact is, after years and years of dominance in the broadcast, print, and cable news, the liberals can't handle one conservative outlet. Americans were tired of the liberal message, and the viewers went to FNC.
Nobody wants to read, listen to, or watch the liberal message. Air America is failing. CNN is in decline. The NYT is losing influence and employees.
If liberals are concerned that they aren't getting their message across in America, perhaps it's because American people disagree.
Left, Right, Up, and Down (Score:3, Interesting)
Austria's Freedom Party [wikipedia.org] comes to mind as a right wing party with power that is extremely far to the right, which recently gain power. Jean-Marie Le Pen [wikipedia.org] of the National Front also comes to mind as an extreme right winger with considerable support.
I am not saying that these people and parties represent the majority in Europe. What I am saying is that they without a doubt have a voice due to the nature of a parliamentary system. When people across the ocean across talk politics, the use of 'left' and 'right' really muddies the waters. The far 'right' in America that has any sort of political voice is nothing like the far 'right' of Europe.
For a fun exercise, try and find the economic positions of the two European parties. In both cases you will be lucky to find anything that mentions taxes, liberal economics, and free trade, the bread and butter of economic policy 'right' in America. What you will find is page after page on their immigration policies, which in Le Pen's case, is to eliminate it altogether. The European right is utterly obsessed with immigration. Now, try to find the immigration policies of an American right wing congressmen. If they live on the border with Mexico you might find a blurb about it, but it won't even be comparable to the European right wing. The American right is obsessed with free trade economics, but barely pays any attention to immigration. In fact, the guest visa system Bush has proposed would send both the European left and right up the wall. The two rights share almost nothing in common other then that they are not socialist.
While left and right are easy terms to shoot off, they really ignore the full range of the political spectrum and lead to gross misunderstandings, especially when trying to translate it across the old pond. For instance, the 'far right' American Libertarians could not even sit in the same room with the 'far right' National Front of France without killing each other.