Quote :

"so you dont think media coverage has grown a good bit in the last 6-7 years..."

uh? Maybe you just started paying attention to it.

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:40 AM. Reason : ?]

3/9/2007 11:39:48 AM

Haha, I bet Twista said that shit didn't he?

3/9/2007 11:40:53 AM

^^amateurish media has certainly grown, but news depts. across the country have been downsized, from networks to newspapers.

3/9/2007 11:41:27 AM

so let me get this straight

are there people in here so intent on trolling me that they will claim the amount of media coverage/exposure out there is just the same as it was during clinton's time in office?

holy shit you guys need to get your heads examined

3/9/2007 11:42:09 AM

the only difference in media coverage between now and 10 years ago, is the explosion of partisan niche "reporting".

i.e., the "blogosphere" and Faux News.

CNN has been all-pervasive for a lot longer than that.

Newspapers are no different now than before. sure, many people click online to read, but funamentally its not much different than picking the paper out of your bushes and reading it over a bowl of Cap'n Crunch.

3/9/2007 11:43:27 AM

do any of you remember something like CNN ten years ago? cause apparently you dont

3/9/2007 11:44:00 AM

news travels faster, that's for sure. but the actual professional coverage has been on the decline.

the speed of coverage has also affected the quality and fact-checking in some cases

CNN has been huge since gulf war 1.

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 11:44:29 AM

Quote :

"are there people in here so intent on trolling me that they will claim the amount of media coverage/exposure out there is just the same as it was during clinton's time in office? "

no ones trolling you. get off your persecution stump. has all that dope smoking made you permanently paranoid?

or are you so intent on trolling this thread that you will claim that there is no fundamental difference between the minor daughter of the sitting US President, or the estranged, 21-year old grown son of an ex-mayor.

hmmm?

3/9/2007 11:46:44 AM

joe_schmoe wins another one

3/9/2007 11:47:51 AM

^how would you know...oh yeah you dont have me blocked you bald liar

maybe they didnt ask chelsea about her dad's affair because the media didnt stoop as low as they do now? but nah you guys are right...nothing has changed in the last 6-8 years...the media isnt a lot more sensational...its not like they spend 6 months on a kidnapped chick...nothing like that...you're right, its just like its always been

wow you guys will argue anything

3/9/2007 11:49:54 AM

Quote :

"do any of you remember something like CNN ten years ago? cause apparently you dont"

according to your profile you were 9 years old, 10 years ago. what the fuck do you remember about CNN then?

I was serving in the US Navy during Gulf I

And CNN was fucking huge. that was 15 years ago.

General Schwartzkopf (or was it Powell) answered a reporter's question during a breifing that "the first I heard of [some event] was when it was reported on CNN"





[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:54 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 11:50:17 AM

^^you must be forgetting news in the 90s. remember oj? or monica lewinsky?

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 11:51:02 AM

^^according to your profile you were 89 years old, 10 years ago

Quote :

"I was serving in the US Navy during Gulf I."

you must have watched a lot of TV to know so much about it

^yeah and OJ and Monica are examples of the media growing...and it didnt just stop growing 6-8 years ago

You know I could say The Internet was huge 10 years ago too

That doesnt mean it hasnt grown a lot more in the past 10 years

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 11:51:19 AM

yeah, because people read/watch SO MUCH MORE news than they did 15 or 30 years ago



seriously. the only difference is there are more alternative sources available, but only a small subset of the population reads them.

most of the public gets the news from mainstream network or cable news programs, or radio, or newspapers.



[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/9/2007 11:56:26 AM

that a way to switch your whole argument

and if you dont think people do watch more news now than 15 or 30 years ago...you're an idiot because 15-30 years ago we didnt have half a dozen 24-hour news channels

and if you dont think people do read more news now than 15 or 30 years ago...you're an idiot because 15-30 years ago we didn't have thousands of internet news sites

but i forgot, you're not trolling me, why would i think that?

Quote :

"most of the public gets the news from mainstream network or cable news programs, or radio, or newspapers"

wow maybe for 89 year olds like yourself grampa...but if you dont know print newspaper circulation and subscription has been dropping the last 5-10 years...well its just more evidence that you're trolling me

Quote :

"seriously. the only difference is there are more alternative sources available"

even if that was the only difference (which its not), you're admitting that the news is more widespread

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:00 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 11:57:48 AM

im not switching my argument, im just incredulous that you're carrying on with this pointless tangent.


my argument is that a 17 year old daughter of a sitting US President is fundamentally completely different subject matter than a grown 21-year old man who happens to be the estranged son of an ex-mayor.

your tangent is something completely unrelated.

3/9/2007 11:59:52 AM

care to address any of my points that completely pwnt your ridiculous claims about the news not being any bigger? or just accept your loss?

i guess thats what you get when you're trolling something that dumb...but hey thats your whole modus here

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 12:01:42 PM

yeah fine. whatever you say.

3/9/2007 12:02:15 PM

hey, you're the one who made the claim that the media is just as big as it was during clinton's term

dont troll me on utterly stupid shit if you dont want me to expose your horrendous "logic"

and for the record I do think theres a difference in a 17 year old girl and 21 year old guy and what can be asked

but i also think its dumb to dismiss the media's growth influencing ANY news topic's coverage

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 12:03:18 PM

i'm not convinced actual news coverage has increased. in fact it seems actual reporting has decreased.

there are just a lot more fucks TALKING about the news.

3/9/2007 12:06:11 PM

I win

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_networktv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=5

3/9/2007 12:07:29 PM

^

Quote :

" In its first year, 2004, this report discussed in detail the various factors affecting nightly news viewership. In brief, those factors include longer work days, expanded commutes, growing competition from new technology, the end of the cold war, cutbacks in network news content, and generational lack of interest in the news. ... But the same survey found that more people, roughly a quarter of respondents, said they got their news on national and international issues from cable outlets like CNN (24%) or Fox News’s cable channel (22%). The Big Three broadcast networks were cited to a lesser degree: ABC (16%), NBC (16%) and CBS (12%).3 Cable viewers said what they liked was the up-to-the-minute news that, in addition, could be tuned in anytime."

the increase in available news options only means that the viewership for any option is spread that much thinner.

all i've been saying is the overall INTEREST in news has not increased.

3/9/2007 12:16:11 PM

I actually didn't read much of that report, and am not sure exactly what Twista is debating about since I got him on block.

Does that link shut him up? Did we win!?

3/9/2007 12:17:38 PM

you can never win against twista.

if you ever think you've won, you've just lost.

3/9/2007 12:19:07 PM

and i don't know if this has been clarified, but paris hilton's latest embarrassment /= news.

3/9/2007 12:19:25 PM

^^^^^^I definitely agree reporting has decreased

^^^^^too bad your link only mentions TV news on the 3 main networks and does nothing in regards to the 24 hour news networks or the Internet

but you can tell yourself you have a full head of hair too, as long you believe it...

^^^^why did you supposedly block me and yet you still respond to everything i say

^^thats a personal problem you have...dont blame me when you argue utter crap

^k...

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:23 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 12:21:07 PM

^ the entire article devotes its time to comparing the big 3 networks, CNN, and FOX. and throws in PBS and the "blogosphere", too.

maybe you ought to actually read it?

3/9/2007 12:22:57 PM

^yes, and the only thing it said decreased was NETWORK TV ratings

which says nothing about all the other news outlets

i thought it was common knowledge that network and print media had decreased but online and cable media had increased? apparently its not common knowledge

hey look heres the part of that report that focuses on online media http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2006/narrative_online_audience.asp?cat=3&media=4

i bet you'll never guess what they conclude

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:26 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 12:24:19 PM

so how does that equate to an increase in news coverage?

most online news is simply wire services or recycled network/newspaper coverage.

3/9/2007 12:27:23 PM

This may be relevant too

http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2006/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=3&media=6

3/9/2007 12:28:24 PM

^wow now you have touched on 2 of the 9 media sources that that site covers

^^how does that NOT equate to an increase in coverage?

3/9/2007 12:32:53 PM

well since we're talking about someone interviewing someone else (or at least we were at one point) i think that happens less today than 10 years ago because actual ORIGINAL news sources have been on the decline.

3/9/2007 12:35:32 PM

i already agreed that reporting and true journalism has declined

doesnt change that the media is more widespread than EVER nowadays

i mean shit there are dozens of sites that people link for stories in the soap box that i've never even heard of, and I KNOW they all werent around 10-15 years ago

3/9/2007 12:37:46 PM

so what is the point of your argument again?

3/9/2007 12:38:39 PM

nice that you've been paying attention

3/9/2007 12:39:58 PM

no i really want to know what your point is about the giulianni story.

3/9/2007 12:41:07 PM

well all you have to do is read through the thread

3/9/2007 12:43:42 PM

is this it?

Quote :

" maybe they didnt ask chelsea about her dad's affair because the media didnt stoop as low as they do now? but nah you guys are right...nothing has changed in the last 6-8 years...the media isnt a lot more sensational...its not like they spend 6 months on a kidnapped chick...nothing like that...you're right, its just like its always been"

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 12:45 PM. Reason : because if so, you haven't really substantiated that point]

3/9/2007 12:45:26 PM

I don't think the media is more sensational. Neither more or less really.

I suppose if it is more sensational, they are doing it in an attempt to get more viewers, but apparently it isn't working...or maybe it is the very cause for the viewership going down.

If that is what he is giving as the reason that they didn't pester Chelsea then he can't be helped because it's clear he has smoked himself stupid once again.

3/9/2007 12:54:47 PM

gosh State409c, you sure do seem to know a lot about what I post considering you supposedly have me on block

3/9/2007 3:04:38 PM

was that your point?

if so, how have you shown that it is true in any way?

3/9/2007 3:06:37 PM

Quote :

"the media is a lot bigger than it was during clinton's term"

you would obviously know this was my point if you had actually read the thread

but i guess its easier to keep asking me questions that ive already answered in this thread

3/9/2007 3:27:54 PM

and let's say that's true (which i'm not convinced of), what does that mean about the giuliani case?

3/9/2007 3:32:18 PM

Even though the rise in Internet media has grown faster than the fall of print media, you're not convinced that the media is bigger than it was? Ok....

But in the same post, I related it to the Giulliani case...simply saying that ANY story will be covered more widespread and with more scrutiny nowadays and that the state of the media now versus 10 years ago means ANY story will be bigger

that would've been pretty obvious if you had simply read my posts in this thread, but I guess you're in more of a trolling mood today

3/9/2007 3:36:39 PM

i'm not trolling anything. i'm asking you to clarify.

i don't really think that there's any evidence that actual consumption of news has increased, just that it's coming from different media. just because someone can read the same associated press story in 100 different places doesn't really change a whole lot.

all that really seems to have changed is that news gets to people faster and often misinformation is spread by blogs/message boards.

3/9/2007 3:41:43 PM

i never said anything about consumption of news cause people still only live in 24 hour days

but there is certainly more news out there...which completely supports my point...

3/9/2007 3:44:25 PM

THERE ISN'T MORE NEWS, there are just more places to get the exact same story. you said as much yourself.

3/9/2007 3:45:42 PM

This should have some good information too, just don't have time to digest it at the moment

http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/38/presentation_display.asp

3/9/2007 3:48:56 PM

^^no i didnt say that

and there IS more news even though my main point is that

Quote :

"the media is a lot bigger than it was during clinton's term"

if you dont think theres more news out there i guess you dont consider any of the political or economic blogs to be news?

you think with the thousands of websites that have come up to spread news around over the last 10 years, that all of them just re-run AP wire stories?

is that why there are so many links in TSB threads to sites I've never heard of that do their own "journalism"?

Cause you yourself have posted links from plenty of those sites...stories that are not available on tradiational news outlets

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 3:51:18 PM

some guy talking about a wire story isn't news in my book. that's like considering talk radio a legitimate news source.

at best i'd say there's far more editorializing about news these days than there was 10 years ago. (and much of that editorializing is far less qualified than the questionable rants in newspapers and networks)

[Edited on March 9, 2007 at 3:53 PM. Reason : .]

3/9/2007 3:52:51 PM