Charlie Daniels...Activist?

  • Thread starter Der Alta
  • 6 comments
  • 517 views
I think it's pretty valid. The media loves to pretend they are objective, but after all, when you are reporting the news, don't you get to decide what that news is?

That's the main reason that all the major network news anchors have such insufferable egos. After a while of enjoying that power, you start to think it's your God-given right to use it. I remember watching many of the big newsies come up through the ranks. Tom Brokaw, for instance, was a perfectly pleasant freshman news anchor 15 or so years ago, and nowadays if I met him in the street I'd knock his teeth down his throat.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
nowadays if I met him in the street I'd knock his teeth down his throat.
:lol: Oh man I gotta catch my breath.... :lol: And he'd still sound the same.

Now I'll go read that article.
 
Is this The Devil Went Down To Georgia Chalie Daniels? No matter.

I think he's right on about the liberal slant, but off on the possible causes. The cause he points out to my mind is more likely to be an effect of a deeper cause: the almightly dollar. Newspapers, TV news programs and their networks, and radio stations are all owned by a handfull of companies. The only thing that effects anything they do is the bottom line, advertising revenue. If it makes money they do it. If it makes [$]more[/$] money they'll trash everything and do that instead. They have no moral obligation to anything. And they equate this with objectivity.

I can hardly watch TV anymore. And I get all of my news from NPR, which is non-commercial (and yes, this is extremely significant), and BBC cable news before work in the morning. America's commercial networks have totally lost me.

I think Charlie gives these producers of news more credit than they deserve. They have not the brains to concoct such a conspiracy. They follow the money like a dog eating scraps off the floor.

And I keep picturing Tom Brokaw holding his bloody mouth . . . :lol:
 
I'm not so sure the BBC news is the best source for objective news, not that you explicitly said they were, unless you did?
 
There is no source for objective news. I like BBC because I get a more international perspective. At 6:00 AM the only other TV news available to me is a bunch of local crap. I also prefer my news to not be covered with a bunch of headache inducing screen graphics. I also like seeing how they report on America. You'll see things you'll never hear about from American news.

One thing I am certain about regarding news is that no matter where you got your information from, somebody who disagrees will tell you your sources are not reliable. It's a given.
 
After majoring in Public Relations, and studying the media in depth I gave up on the news years ago. I only watch for the weather.
If you want an interesting perspective on the news get the movie "Broadcast News". Not only do the anchors wield an incredible amount of ego, they back it up with a very small amount of intelligence.
As has been stated, the news is a "freakin' huge" game of "follow the dollar".
News must be contriversial to be a big seller. Not many folks care that someone did a good turn for somebody else.
Don Henley hit the nail squarely on the head with the song "Dirty Laundry". Most of the news people hit the nail squarely on the thumb.
*edit*
Now that I have read Charlie Daniels letter, I have to say that for the most part, I agree with him.
The media in this country is all about "stirring the pot" and not about "seeing what's cooking in that pot".

I have a patient that yells out "Help, Help!" instead of using his call light, because it is more dramatic and gets someone in his room on the double. (Yes, he has now been "counseled" that yelling "Help, Help" to get a curtain moved is NOT a DIRE emergency. AND the next time he yells "Help, Help" he better be on the floor, or that blood MUST be squirting out of his boddy.)
The news media does the same type of thing.
:irked:
 
Back