It seems that in Murrow's day- TV news was more of a civics lesson, and had the purpose of education.
Today, news seems to have more entertainment value.
Do you believe new was better in Murrow's day....or today?
2006-09-23 02:09:10 · 8 answers · asked by Villain 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If people tell the truth today....some people will yell bias ....because they don't like the answer!
2006-09-23 02:23:42 · update #1
Better then.
It's not really news today . . . it's entertainment or it's the views of the owners of the media infiltrated into the reporting.
2006-09-23 02:12:37 · answer #1 · answered by a_blue_grey_mist 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
At least Murrow had the courage to tell the truth. How many reporters today can be accused of that? Media creates polemics to sell newspapers, not the truth. If you read the newspapers, it would appear that China is prepared to overwhelm Taiwan at any moment...and the truth is that neither are much interested in taking time away from the business of making money to really care...I live in China. A few months ago, in the Manchester Guardian (British newspaper) was a story of the government of China selling the skins of executed criminals to make cosmetics! It was both inflammatory and a good example of the polemics used by the media. Virtually everyday, a news story pops up with a scientific claim...XXXX MAY do so and so....always the MAY, and if you watch the headlines in medicine, science or politics, you will see that word more and more frequently as the media always protects its butt that way. Nothing is fact...just MAY. A few weeks ago, an Australian paper claimed that scientists discovered that cows are a major source of global warming problems by producing too much intestinal gas...so farting is the real cause...no industry?? The newspapers in the world are controlled by big business and politics...remember NIXON...did it happen before or since??? The talking heads put on a show and the gullible swallow it and the public sways in tune.
2006-09-23 02:21:24 · answer #2 · answered by Frank 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends, in the 50's and 60's it was less influenced by advertisers, but the stories were slow to show up on TV, and then it was bad video. Today the advertisers have a big say over what is or isn't shown, or the network's don't criticize the government if they are trying to get licenses or exceptions to FCC rules or regulations, but the stories are delivered soon after an event in High Definition. I prefer the poor video and objective reporting, All the networks have undue influence but, the Fox News Network has the least objective reporting.
2016-03-27 04:21:03 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is better today because they have more tools, I mean back in Ed's day they had no satellite to beam the bombing of Iraq. If you turn the sound down then you take the entertainment factor out of it, there is better world wide coverage of what is happening.
2006-09-23 02:19:56 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ed Murrow was a hero and provided insight!
2006-09-23 03:20:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's better today because we have Fox News to give both sides, and the truth.
By the time that Rather, Jennings, and Brokow took over, we were hand fed liberal beliefs, and they did not like the USA.
2006-09-23 02:20:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In Ed's day the news was more limited than now due to more limited communications. But what is news is still limited by the newscasters' and the advertisers' prejudices.
2006-09-23 02:18:51 · answer #7 · answered by James S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It was better then...today's news is nothing more than contrived fluff
2006-09-23 02:12:22 · answer #8 · answered by dstr 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋