Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media

'NBC Nightly News' to Be Shown on Internet 279

Posted by CmdrTaco from the step-in-the-right-direction dept.
Feltope writes "NBC News said Monday that it would begin making its "NBC Nightly News" broadcast available for free on the Internet starting next week. Past broadcasts will also be archived at the http://www.nightlynews.msnbc.com/ Web site, the network said. It's not necessarily news on demand, though. The newscast, aired at 6:30 p.m. on many NBC stations on the East Coast, won't be available on the Web until after 10 p.m. ET. 'Many of our viewers tell me they often miss the broadcast because they're not at home or tending to their busy lives and families," anchor Brian Williams said. "This new service reflects the fact that the pace of our lives has changed.' "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'NBC Nightly News' to Be Shown on Internet More

'NBC Nightly News' to Be Shown on Internet

Comments Filter:

  • TV: Nice Knowing you (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:21AM (#13923429)

    Guess the addiction to the TV is slowly being replaced by addiction to the internet?

    • Good News (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Rinnt ( 917105 )
      While I realize I am in the minority here, this is nice to hear for those of us without televisions at home. Watching the news is one thing I miss, even if I may disagree w/some of the politics... Sure, I can always read the news on the web, but the radio/TV form of media does let accomplish more at once (since you aren't chained to a desk).

      • Sure, I can always read the news on the web, but the radio/TV form of media does let accomplish more at once (since you aren't chained to a desk).

        NBC Nightly News on the Internet, with POPOVERS !, PUPUNDERS !!, BANNER ADS !!! ADWORDS by GOOGLE !!!!

        Yeah, I can see how TV would be more interesting .and productive ..

      • Being chained to a desk isn't nessacary anymore. laptop, wireless connection and your golden.

        Of course the question is why? I stopped watching the morning news when i realized I watched it more for staring at the news reporters and the anchors, than for content.

      • Re:Good News (Score:3, Insightful)

        by eln ( 21727 )
        but the radio/TV form of media does let accomplish more at once (since you aren't chained to a desk).

        Maybe, but most people aren't sitting there doing their taxes while they watch the news. Most people are sitting there in their underwear eating Cheetos while watching the news.

        That aside, television news encourages sound-bite levels of detail, especially if you're multitasking while you watch it. The result is that the viewer is more likely to be susceptible to simple propaganda messages, and far less lik
    • It has always been thus. I can remember when our BBS would go down. People would immediately call each other. "Can you get online?" "No. You?" "No! Did you call Jimbo?" "No, but I talked to Dark Horse and he did!" "Cool." "Not cool! Jimbo is out to dinner and probably won't be back for awhile." "$HIT! I've been hot chatting with LadyStone for hours!" "Dude, she's on that other chat BBS, do you have an account?" "No!" "Go join. You get like 1 free hour once your validated." "Yeah, but you have to send a copy

  • People still watch news... on television?!? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by voice_of_all_reason ( 926702 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:22AM (#13923448)
    Why watch a whole news show when you can simply fire up the 'ol internets and check CNN?
    • Because most people, when they get home from a long day of whatever do not want to fire up the ole computer and log on to CNN. They want to lay in their bed/couch and let the news freeflow to them. They want to be able to make dinner while the news is in the background. Sitting at your computer takes effort and some people do not want to put effort at that given point in time. It's a convenience that should not be diminished.

  • Lame Attempt (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EraserMouseMan ( 847479 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:22AM (#13923452)
    This must be their lame attempt to encourage a younger audience to watch the evening news. Statistics show that the vast majority of people who watch the evening news are in their 50s or older.

    They should change the format and get a much younger anchor if they really want to attract a different demographic. Old-fashioned news doesn't become new just because you can watch it on Internet.
    • "get a much younger anchor"

      You know, the sad truth is that you are exactly right. Fox news has gone that route, and a significant portion of the email they receive on the "Fox and Friends" morning show has to do with whether or not the young anchorwoman is wearing a skirt. Now half of the anchors on CNN Headline news look like teenagers.

      Aargh.

      All I want is content, and I know there are still places to find it, but sometimes I feel that soon all we'll be able to get from the $media is Ken and Barbie spoon-feeding us pablum.

      • whether or not the young anchorwoman is wearing a skirt.

        You mean they let her take it off while she's on air? Wow, talk about doing anything to boost the ratings .... Gee, I've gotta start getting my news off the TV again instead of the ne[tt].

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Younger, Smarter... Fairer! Balanced! Not! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hackstraw ( 262471 ) * on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:11AM (#13923880)
        All I want is content...

        Unfortunately, I know of no news program on television that really displays such a thing. Sure, there may be some real news here or there, but overall, content is not the important thing here. I personally consider loading CNN's webpage as amusement. I look at it just to know what other people see and think is "news". The current big headline is about a flu pandemic. Ohhhh, scary. If yesterday wasn't halloween, a headline like this might be more effective.

        Regarding the age of the anchor people, that is a tough one. Younger people do not consider the words of older people as really authoritative. This is a trend that has been going on for about 30 years plus or minus. My guess is that technology (gadgets) has everything to do with it.

        Why should a younger person trust another when they can't even record a program on their VCR?

        Thats an older example, but still relevant. I heard of a study from 12+ years ago, that said that the lower your education the more likely you are to be able to program your VCR. The highschool dropout was the most likely, and the PhD was the least likely.

        Back to news. I believe that there is a difference between news and events. Events are simply things that happen, like me typing this on a keyboard. News is current information about events that is relevant to someone. By having that new information, someone can think about and/or do something different vs not having that information.

        At least where I live, the local news almost always has the "random death and crime" segment. Where they go locally and across the nation and world talking about how somebody might have killed somebody, robbed them, died in a car pileup, or something similar.

        Those my friends are purely events, not news. There is nothing anybody can do with that information. Especially when one considers that crime is at an all time low at this time in the US. In the grand picture, those events are even less significant than they could have been, but its still a favorite segment of the televised news.

        I'm not sure how to end this rant, so I'll keep rambling. I also read during the 2004 election, that the people that were most informed about the election were people that got their news from places like the "Daily Show". Its a comedy/parody of news with a very sarcastic slant, but if people are getting more relevant news from a source that is not even news when compared to the real news -- to me that says volumes.
        • Younger people do not consider the words of older people as really authoritative. This is a trend that has been going on for about 30 years plus or minus.

          Yes it's called the "You got us into this fucking mess, why should I listen to you?" theory.
        • Unfortunately, I know of no news program on television that really displays such a thing.

          Try Jim Lehrer's News Hour. It's usually a few lengthly segments with really good focus. These are also available online: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/video/ [pbs.org] Jeff

        • Re:Younger, Smarter... Fairer! Balanced! Not! (Score:5, Informative)

          by tfoss ( 203340 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @02:02PM (#13925327)
          Unfortunately, I know of no news program on television that really displays such a thing.

          Check out PBS's offerings. There [pbs.org] are [pbs.org] a number [pbs.org] of programs that tend to be quite informative, and less infotainment. Granted, some aren't strictly news in the "Film at eleven" sense of the term, but then again, if you want any kind of depth you are pretty much going to have to wait a little while.

          I also read during the 2004 election, that the people that were most informed about the election were people that got their news from places like the "Daily Show"

          Better than that, The Daily Show won a Peabody [uga.edu] award. Twice. I agree, that is pretty sad statement on contemporary journalism when a self-described "fake news show" wins over real news shows.

          -Ted

        • The National Review Online once mentioned in their blog a "hemline index" of how serious the global situation was. When a serious situation develops, female anchors need to be seen as serious journalists, so their skirts would get longer and more professional. During a slow news cycle, they'd wear shorter skirts to boost ratings. Prior to 9/11, they were practically wearing micro-minis. Male anchors, of course, wear the same stuff no matter what. Unless they're military consultants, in which case every day

    • Re:Lame Attempt (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CrayzyJ ( 222675 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:31AM (#13923540) Homepage Journal
      WTF are you talking about? "old-fashoined" news? News is news. News is what is important going on in YOUR world. Period.

      I hate it when they work in who is sleeping with whom in Hollywood. That is not news. the latest movie review is not news.

    • Younger anchor? Maybe they could put a non-15-million-dollar face in there.

      Brokaw: $5 million/year. Peter Jennings died with a $50 million dollar inheritance. For what, looking and sounding good on television?
    • statistics also show that a vast majority of 50+ people actually know what the heck is going on in the world.

      I'd venture the percentage of 20somethings that do would pale in comparison...(I'm 35 in case it's relevant).

      As another poster pointed out...it's the channels that have 'dumbed down' their broadcasts that irk me more than the 'age' or 'appearance' of the presenter. Do we need Rather, or some other elder statesmen fighting hurricane force winds? nope, but they do tend to lend some insight a teen

    • Re:Lame Attempt (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah, that's what Comedy Central did. It's called The Daily Show. More young people get their news from The Daily Show than anywhere else. That's scary!

      • Re:Lame Attempt (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        I forgot where I read it but someone also did a study and found that more people learned what's happening in the world better and more accurately from Comedy Central than any other news broadcast. Just because there's a sarcastic and comedic overtone to the show doesn't mean that people don't get it.

      • Re:Lame Attempt (Score:5, Insightful)

        by DetrimentalFiend ( 233753 ) * on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:09AM (#13923857)
        That's the only news show I watch. But the reason is simple: the other news shows are physically painful to watch. Personally, the way I feel about the current political and news environment is just about dead on with Jon Stewart, and I think the same is for many 'young people' like me. But let's get something else straight, the Daily Show is not around for news; delivering news is more of a by-product.
    • I think what you suggest would be lame too. To capture the young demographic like you suggest, I think they would have to dump the last of the remaining politics stuff and have news reports and editorials about how W is bad because Laura Bush wears bad shoes!

  • The Internet (Score:4, Funny)

    by mikejz84 ( 771717 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:22AM (#13923456)
    Using the Internet to watch a network newscast is like going to a newsstand and getting USA Today.

  • Little too late folks! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:23AM (#13923462)
    "This is the next logical step for 'Nightly' and NBC News," said Capus. "As the leader on the broadcast side, and with our partnership in the leading online news and information site, MSNBC.com, it couldn't be a better fit. We know that just as fast as technology is changing, people's lives are changing too, and they expect our newscasts to keep up with those changes. With this announcement we are doing just that."

    It was the next logical step four years ago. It should have been done two years before that. We're supposed to just nod our heads and say, "oh, right, technology has finally caught up!" Blah. ASF movies were floating around in the 200MB range (2+ hours) on IRC in the late 1990s. Why couldn't news broadcasts be put out (~45 mins) in the same format for less than 100MB?

    I don't care at all personally as I like to get my news in a readable format from multiple sources on multiple continents but I just don't see why it couldn't have been done 2 to 5 years ago.

    Little too late IMHO.
    • A number of years ago, the local Fox affiliate posted online the content that was sent to the teleprompters during the news (not Fox News, the local Fox station's news program), raw. So if you missed something, you could just go online and read it yourself (there was a whole section on "Why the teleprmpter text is like so", too).

      Too bad they stopped it a few years after that. It was fun though - they made a big fuss about it.
    • ASF movies were floating around in the 200MB range (2+ hours) on IRC in the late 1990s. Why couldn't news broadcasts be put out (~45 mins) in the same format for less than 100MB?

      Cost/benefit.

      Its not uncommon for even a decent commercial website to persevere a good slashdotting. Granted, this was a very extreme example, but during the events on 9/11/01, all of the big brandname internet news sites were completely down. And this is with well less than 1 meg of information from the site at a time. 100 megs

  • Great.....but (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Celt ( 125318 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:23AM (#13923463) Journal
    Not exactly cutting edge,
    in Ireland have been streaming and archiving their news broadcasts and political programs for years now, surely shouldn't the US be ahead of countries like Ireland? ;) [www.rte.ie]

    The quality of RTE's streams are not great but their watchable.
    • No, but you see, Ireland is WEE TINY and America has many thousands of miles of fruited plain from sea to shining sea. Thus broadband rollout and adoption has been much greater per capita in Ireland, creating demand for initiatives such as streamed news broadcasts. You'd think the populations of NYC, LA, SF and Chicago would more than make up for the geographic hindrances (and you'd think we'd have far more residential fiber in those population centers) but alas they have not.

  • Not available until after 10p? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GungaDan ( 195739 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:23AM (#13923465) Homepage
    Why the delay? Broadcast it, encode it, and make it available. I should be able to see the 6p broadcast news online at 7p. If I wanted to wait until 10p, I'd watch the 10p broadcast news...

    • It's kinda funny, for shows like CSI, they're usually encoded and uploaded within 45 minutes of airing. In high def. With no commercials. I know people on the west coast can download the show before it airs in their time zone. Maybe NBC should hire some of the nice people from LoL to do their news encodes.
      • I've seen stuff posted before it finishes airing on the East Coast. That doesn't even make sense!

        • Re:Not available until after 10p? (Score:4, Informative)

          by bugg ( 65930 ) * on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:43AM (#13924158) Homepage
          If you're serious, then it's probably because people have pulled the satfeed via C-band. Sat time is cheaper during off-peak hours, so for most networks they'll just throw up a program at night and affiliates will tape it and air it at the scheduled time.

          For many networks, especially free over the air networks, these feeds get sent "in the clear" - anyone with a BUD (big ugly dish) in their backyard can get the feed of the show, complete with slate and all. Combine that with a capture device and mencoder, and a show can hit bittorrent before it airs in any market.
    • They are probably waiting until it airs on TV on the west coast before putting it online.
    • It will be availibe immedatly after it airs in PST... 10pm EST 7pm PST. They could not put it up earlier or they would screw all of their western affiliates.

  • Great News (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gherikill ( 825515 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:25AM (#13923485)
    I have often wished that more companies would do this, it would be more entertaining to watch the news on my PSP during my commute than to read papers. What format are they offering? How big are the files?
    • My sentament exactly. I used to live/work in the DC metro area, and sitting on a metro for 40 minutes would be a great time to catch up on last night's news, an episode of Lost, or some of the latest technology video blogs.

      -Rick

  • Saves time too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by KE1LR ( 206175 ) <ken DOT hoover AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:25AM (#13923486) Homepage
    If you strip out the commercials you can watch it in under 20 minutes too.

    • Re:Saves time too! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cro Magnon ( 467622 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:31AM (#13923538) Homepage Journal
      If you also strip out the BS, you can watch it in 5.
    • If you strip out the commercials you can watch it in under 20 minutes too

      Regretably, they're using MSN Video technology which includes online ads you have to watch -- so you don't even have that advantage.

      When I read this headline on Slashdot, I was hoping they'd be offering downloadable mpegs or partnering with the iTunes Media Store as a video podcast, or something hip like that. But instead we just get browser-based video that's presented just like it would be on the television. Not exactly worth crowing
    • If you strip out the commercials you can watch it in under 20 minutes too.

      And if you strip out everything that you didn't already see on the 'net, you can save even those 20 minutes.

      c.

  • German Tagesschau already has it (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:26AM (#13923500)
    The german Tagesschau [tagesschau.de], the most popular daily newsshow offers this service for quite a while now. You can see the shows live or from the archive.

  • I thought they cancelled "Nightly News" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by xxxJonBoyxxx ( 565205 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:30AM (#13923522)
    I thought they cancelled "Nightly News". Seriously. Who has time to sit around for half an hour when you get the same information in thirty seconds on the Internet?

  • Here is the [big] question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bogaboga ( 793279 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:31AM (#13923541)
    Will the broadcast be viewable in Linux by default? Or will one have to tweak their distros in order to see the content. I guess the more accurate question would be..."Will Open Standards be employed in this effort?"

    Before I leave, I should mention that I have my doubts as to whether browser applications like Firefox and Konqueror will work out of the box.

    After all, even for Google, which is seen to support open standards and Linux, had to be asked to provide support to Firefox and Konqueror when it came to Google Maps. For companies like Yahoo, their Launchcast service is not available for folks using Linux and Firefox or Konqueror. This is after more than 5 years of [Launchcast's availability. These are sad times indeed. I hope I am wrong.

  • Free as in 'chock full of ads'? MSNBC.com is famous for all the annoying ways they've found to slow down their site with ads. I don't have high hopes for this.

  • Internet News is Good (Score:3)

    by dslauson ( 914147 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:34AM (#13923559) Journal
    I get all my news from the internet. If I'm looking for news, though, I'm not going to the networks' sites. If I wanted that, I'd just turn on the TV. I already have my sources for internet news, and I'm really not interested in this half-assed attempt to win me over. People still think they can slap their old way of doing things up on the internet, and it will be magically fresh and innovative. Not so much.
  • http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=165283&cid=137 90589 [slashdot.org]

    Now just get it up on iTunes and I'll be even happier.

  • BBC been doing it for ages now (Score:5, Informative)

    by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:35AM (#13923574)
    BBC News has allowed you to watch the news and various events live or archived on their site for some time now. Unlike CNN (via shitty Real OnePass) it's free too.
    • The BBC even houses video & audio of news from years ago as part of its On This Day [bbc.co.uk] archive. The rest of the mass media sector has a LOT to do before they even get near the BBC.
    • Unlike CNN (via shitty Real OnePass) it's free too.

      Not true! Have you not seen the new CNN.com "with free video"? It's not even Real, so I can actually watch it if I want to. Unfortunately it's Media Player content, so I can't watch it at home. Ho hum.

  • ...fail, balanced, and unafraid.

  • It's Delayed Because... (Score:4, Informative)

    by zentec ( 204030 ) * <zentec@gmai l . com> on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:36AM (#13923585)
    ...the networks still have distribution agreements with local affiliates.

    The networks would LOVE to be able to distribute their content on their own; MSNBC is an example of doing just that, and eventually the day will come when the local stations have to pay for the network feed (some CBS stations already pay for network).

    Television is changing, but I don't think it's been changing for the better. The internet doesn't add much to the change, just quickens the pace. The programming is still crap.

  • I don't think I get it (Score:3)

    by $RANDOMLUSER ( 804576 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @10:41AM (#13923620)
    First, why would I waste the (high-speed) bandwidth to watch talking-head/film-clip news which is inherently low-speed bandwidth?

    Second, a web-page has the same built-in layout as a newspaper (ooooh! that looks interesting - click), not the serial presentation of TV; plus the ability to switch from text to film-clips, active graphics, sound, etc.

    So why do I want to watch network news over the Internet?

  • The Internet already allows people to communicate using an classic, information-rich medium known as "ASCII". Try this experiment, sometime. Count the number of words in a a typical TEEVEE presentation of the news. Now pick up a dead tree, and count the number of words allocated to the same subject. Long live text!

  • Mac & Linux Unsupported! (Score:5, Informative)

    by objekt ( 232270 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:03AM (#13923788) Homepage
    To use MSN Video, you need to install free software
    MSN Video works with Microsoft© Internet Explorer 6, Microsoft© Media Player 10, and Macromedia Flash 7. To download these free software applications, click the links below and follow the on-screen instructions.
  • Canada's CTV News [www.ctv.ca] has made their complete daily broadcast available on the web for well over a year.

  • Free? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AviLazar ( 741826 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:05AM (#13923808) Journal
    If it has advertising on it then it is not free, it is just the tv stations finally airing a broadcast in a different format.

    I wish they did this with every tv show. They could even charge their advertisers more money for ads. Instead of saying "Hey we think the people who watch Smallville will like commercials about Axe Deoderant, we can make a potential viewer register, ask him what kind of advertising he would like and then direct advertise for him. Pay up more money"...this I wouldn't mind so then I could get commercials I want (like I really want to see tampon commercials).

    I wish they would make it more direct, i mean four hours is a lot. I could understand half hour, at most.

  • Tv shows on DVD (Score:4, Funny)

    by n8willis ( 54297 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:10AM (#13923870) Homepage Journal
    Sweet! Now it's only a matter of time before they release the entire series on DVD. Me I can't wait to get Season One -- David Brinkley, John Chancellor, the best the absolute best.

    Not to mention the epic storylines that year: Vietnam, Apollo 13, the Beatles breaking up (holy crap! who saw that coming?), the Kent State tie-in. Must-see classics, every ep. Frankly the shows gone down the past couple of years, but can you blame them? The set the bar too high, nobody can write like that anymore.

  • Brian Williams is a Great Anchor (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Milican ( 58140 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:11AM (#13923875) Journal
    I'm 29, and I think Brian Williams is a fantastic anchor. I also saw him as a guest on The Daily Show twice. The impression I got is that he's incredibly sharp and has a very quick wit. The first time, he went toe to toe with Jon Stewart and they were both hilarious. The second time was much more serious, and I was quite impressed with what Brian had been through covering Hurricane Katrina from inside the Super Dome and around New Orleans. Brian is no talking head. He could be replaced by a Gideon Yago [mtv.com] type anchor, but the quality of the coverage would surely suffer. Making their newscasts available online is a good step to increasing their viewer base without pandering to meaningless Hollywood gossip, or other gimmicks.

    JOhn

  • All Aboard the Band Wagon! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by catdevnull ( 531283 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @11:22AM (#13923983)
    Just an observation--maybe I'm being master of the obvious here...

    I remember back in the 1970s when there were just 3-5 channels that we could get on TV. We were pretty much stuck with whatever came in best with our copper hangers and aluminum foil. NBC, CBS, and ABC all vied for the coveted ratings and they each had captive audiences that had to watch their advertising to see what happened next on their favorite show or movie of the week.

    That was the OLD way. Today, we have a consumer base that is wanting to use pick and choose their programming a la carte. Not only that, but we want it more and more through our computers. Some are willing to pay for it instead of dealing with advertising.

    We're going through a major shift in media and ABC, CBS, NBC, et. al. are starting to feel it as much as NYTimes and the other on-line newspapers. I really don't think they know exactly what to do so they just repackage instead of re-inventing the way they program and deal with revenue.

    The aging advertising revenue model has been completely circumvented by the advent of TiVO and downloadable content. Advertisers pay big bucks for the exposure but now they don't feel they should pay as much if the consumers skip through the commercials or block them altogether.

    So now we have an internet version of the same broadcast as NBC jumps on the bandwagon. The thing is, it's just re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. The big broadcasters and newspapers are going to have to rethink the way they do business or they're going to have to learn to endure a shrinking marketshare.

    AP and Reuters news blurbs read by an overpaid talking head is very 20th century. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next couple of years.

  • Progress (Score:2)

    by J05H ( 5625 )
    This is progress! The major networks have been phobic about the "Internets" since the early 90s. Before that it was just a research.mil toy, with the dot-coms the TV networks saw their futures threatened. Partly, they were correct - we Slashdotans are a demographic that has statistically given up on television. That NBC would take the steps to broadcast online demonstrates that they comprehend this shift ("in people's lives" bit) and are trying to capitalize on it. Good for them, some cluefulness.

    Josh

  • TV news have something internet news doesn't? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sycomonkey ( 666153 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @12:25PM (#13924514) Homepage
    Maybe this is a bad example, but I gauge my understanding of current events, in one way, by my ability to get Daily Show jokes. I skim Google News at least a few times a day, clicking through to any stories of interest or import, and am an avid reader of The Economist. I also have been known to read CNN news on my cell phone. Am I missing something from not watching traditional TV news?

  • NBC == News? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ranger ( 1783 ) on Tuesday November 01, 2005 @05:15PM (#13927287) Homepage
    It's not real news. NBC Nightly News is a newslike substitute in much the same way that textured vegetable protein is a meatlike substitute. Fox News on the other hand is like dog vomit and it's viewers are like the dog who eats it. CBS News went downhill after Walter Cronkite left. ABC News was only worth watching late at night with Ted Koppel. You could stare at him for hours wondering whether or not that was his real hair.

    And CNN has the hottest infobabes. Who cares if whether its real news or not? I wish CNN would bring Rudi Bakhtiar back. At least they still have Robin Meade, Soledad O'Brien, Erica Hill, Sophie Choi, Susan Hendricks, and Arthel Neville, to name a few. CNN definitely got the better end of the deal when they traded Greta van Susteran for Paula Zahn.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close