Do we really want neutral news?

Really, I don't think any news that advertises stuff and has pop culture news as important as other news can really be relatively unbiased USA's news system would need rather big overhaul.

edited 5th Jul '12 11:42:42 PM by SpookyMask

In other words, a complete rebuild from the ground up?

Not sure if this has been linked already, but I found it vaguely relevant.

This is the part that really struck me as a root issue, at least in America.

How do you get people to stop thinking about 'rooting for the team' and start thinking about the issues? How do you change the minds of people who already have their minds made up? How do we cultivate DETACHMENT in entertainment media?

Well I'd start with offering a news channel that is always there no matter what their ratings are and is widely available... giving you just that; detached unemotional news.

Such a news source will need government funding, however. Which means a whole lot of extra laws in place to make sure that they are protected from being bullied by whoever is in charge at a time. Much like a fourth pillar to the Trias Politica.

Paperwork aside, pretty good start, certainly. But how do we get people to actually watch it while it's drowned out by all those fast-food news outlets?

EDIT: But yeah, sensationalism in the news seems to be the main problem. Not just regarding politics, really. I mean, in between that article and tropes like Missing White Woman Syndrome, it's like news agencies have long given up on actually delivering news, and are just trying to pull readers by publishing all kinds of not-quite-fiction to pull readers.

edited 6th Jul '12 1:51:10 PM by Kayeka

One thing that Americans appreciate, I think, is truthfulness in news. So long as this new less biased channel can give more truth on average, point out lies/propaganda of the other stations (in a quiet non-confrontational way so as not to waste resources), I think the uptake will be there. I'm generally optimistic that Americans are intelligent enough to pick this up.

At the very least, it's not making the situation worse.

edited 6th Jul '12 1:49:01 PM by breadloaf

Truthfulness apparently doesn't sell newspapers. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have this discussion. Oh sure, every single person will tell you they appreciate truth in their news, but when it comes down to it, it becomes clear that all they want is conformation for their own version of 'the truth'.

Not to mention that most news stories published are plenty true. They are just entirely irrelevant.

edited 6th Jul '12 1:56:06 PM by Kayeka

I'm skeptical of objective news being competitive in the age of things like Fox News in the first place, is the big thing. But yeah, Breadloaf, you're probably right in that we need to start doing the obvious things, like having a BBC equivalent in the first place, and then see how that pans out before we worry about making it more effective once it's in place.

Alternately, I've heard so many good things about Al Jazeera, it might be enough to just find a way to sponsor them part time on a station instead of trying to create something from thin air.

I have seen some REALLY good news on the Daily News show, actual serious life-endangering blow your mind that the 'real' news outlets aren't reporting it news, but they seem to be content to hold up the umbrella of 'we're a comedy show, really!' no matter what. And we can't exactly FORCE them to drop that defense if they feel it's necessary for whatever reason. Stewart is getting old, after all, and Colbert has too much of his persona built on parody to just toss it. Nonetheless there have been times when I want to poke through the television and scream at them 'Why don't you take yourselves more seriously?! You do good, respectable news, dammit!' And they really do. (When they feel like it.)

All I want is a news to call out lies and bullshit in their face.

I'd like to point out that Al Jazeera is ex-BBC guys plus ex-CBC leadership. British and Canadians can apparently work together! They also lose the most journalists in conflict zones, it's pretty bad. Everyone kills their journalists, including American soldiers.

As far as my confidence in the American public, I may sound cynical most of the time but I have a hidden undercurrent of optimism when it comes to North America's population.

edited 6th Jul '12 2:18:13 PM by breadloaf

Actually, at this point in time, I gotta wonder if there's any point in trying to create a government-funded news network in America.

I mean, while most Americans recognize that our news networks are biased in some way or focus too much on unimportant stuff, at present creating a government funded substitute isn't even a blip in the public consciousness. So, before a bill establishing such a network could be presented to Congress, you'd need to spend at least a year or two aggressively advertising the idea, building up public support.

Then would come the inevitable objections to the bill: it's not necessary; it hurts the free market; it costs too much; it would just be a propoganda vehicle; it's not something the Federal government is authorized to do; it's supported by my political rival, so it must be wrong. Meanwhile, people who do support the bill are still going to disagree about the right way to implement it, how they're going to fund it, who's going to be in charge of it, and so on. And while all that's happening, it's likely that some of the existing news networks, not wanting another rival on the scene, will skew their coverage of the bill's progress, over-emphasizing the bill's detractors so that public opinion turns against it. Even if the bill overcomes all these obstacles, we're still looking at several years of congressional battling before it gets passed.

And even if that happens, television networks aren't built overnight. Buildings will need to be bought, employees will need to be hired, deals with cable companies will need to be made, licenses will need to be earned. All that's gonna take a few more years to accomplish.

And, even if you believe people will choose a source of boring but unbiased and informative news over infotainment, people are still creatures of habit. They're likely to keep watching CNN or FOX or MSNBC because it's what they've always watched, and only gradually come over to the new, government-funded alternative. So, once the network's up and running, you're still looking at a couple years before it actually gets a large audience.

In summation: even if you're very optimistic about creating such a network, it'd take at least ten or twelve years before it would really start doing any good, and I'd personally bet money on it taking much longer.

This is a big deal because television is a dying medium. The Internet is rapidly taking over more and more of television's business, especially now that many TV sets can double as computer monitors. I have serious doubts about whether, twenty years from now, television networks as we know them today will still exist in the United States. And even if they are still around, their viewership and influence will be greatly reduced, and it will be just a matter of time before they either go bust or convert entirely into Internet based businesses.

So I don't see much point in the government creating a television news network, because by the time they actually get one built, television networks will be in their twilight days. Why spend so much time and money on something that will become obsolete so quickly? If we're going to create a government funded outlet for news, I'd prefer it focus on using New Media instead of television.

Maybe that's why US Networks act like they do, since they know their time is coming to an end?