Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CBS and CNN Could Be Making News Together

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the making-beautiful-news-together dept.

Businesses 124

crimeandpunishment writes "More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations. CBS and CNN, who have danced around the idea of a partnership for years, may be ready to move forward. Both news organizations have a lot at stake. Broadcast network news has a gloomy financial outlook, and CNN's ratings need a jump-start."

cancel ×

124 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Agility (0, Flamebait)

siloko (1133863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32108906)

Yes, because what we need more of in this face, paced online environment is an old media behemoth to bring ingenuity and inventiveness to the scene!

Re:Agility (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32108940)

Do you feel lucky [google.com] ?

Re:Agility (2, Informative)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109318)

CBS cares.

Just what they need (4, Funny)

NaCh0 (6124) | more than 4 years ago | (#32108944)

Larry King guest starring on 60 Minutes.

No Thanks. I'll keep my dial set to the hotties and relevant commentators on FoxNews.

Re:Just what they need (-1, Troll)

w00tsauce (1482311) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109072)

I want anderson cooper to make a porn video with kim kardashian.

Re:Just what they need (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109982)

Unless Kim Kardashian has a fat hairy cock and a ball-sack she can teabag him with that none of us knows about, then your wish ain't gonna happen...

Furthermore, perhaps CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, and pMSNBC wouldn't all be getting their asses handed to them in the ratings if they had taken Barack Obama's cock out of their mouths for 5 minutes during the 2008 election cycle. Now we're stuck with a guy with a 5-minute resume continuing Bush's policies that had the moonbats up in arms, while marginalizing our European friends, embracing our enemies (his radical leftist soulmates), and pretending that Muslims aren't violent.

Re:Just what they need (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111066)

Anderson Cooper is Ghey??????

I had no idea, He always seemed like such a nice straight boy, the kind who would date a girl for several score before proposing to her under duress from his parents.

Re:Just what they need (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32110394)

Sorry, there are no relevant commentators on Faux News. Hotties, maybe, but commentators of merit or relevance, no.

News (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32108952)

Maybe CNN could start reporting actual news instead of relying on their viewers to tweet "interesting" information about the latest celebrity breakups so they can read it out on air.

Re:News (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109022)

"And we're back. I'm Anderson Cooper, and this is AC 360. Before the break we asked our viewers what they thought of the Obama administration's response to the oil disaster."

Pwnface69: Obama is gr8 n I think it we have a black president

"That's a good point. Good input. Let's bring up an opposing view."

RedNeckBeck72: oblama blew up the rig himself and acorn for the stopping drilling cus global warming scam

BushLiedKidsDied: it was bush fault lobbyists and haliburton made backdoor deals

"Quite a diverse array of opinions we have here. Next up, what is the Achilles' Heel of elephants? The answer may surprise you. Stay tuned."

Re:News (2, Interesting)

prisma (1038806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109036)

I agree with this. Their move toward engaging the less serious folks alienates those of us who are interested in proper news reports. What's also annoying to me is how their Headline News channel seem to be increasingly populated by talk shows. Is there really not enough news going on around the world to report on for 24hrs a day or do their bean counters simply deem it to be too expensive? I'm guessing also that they believe a less casual pop-news format would increase CNN's viewership.

Re:News (2, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109054)

When you primarily limit yourselves to news stories that occur within the US it makes it that much more difficult to fill 24 hours with actual news.

Re:News (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109746)

There is a lot of news that happends in the United States that can make a good 24 hour plan. However the fact is that CNN is trying to get the most audence. So they are filling it with entertainment flufff. And the meaningless comentaries that just get people routing for them or going online to critize them.

Re:News (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110676)

CNN has a sister station called CNNi which focuses on international news stories. Sadly, most of the American public is more concerned about Tiger Woods nailing a Perkins waitress than whether or not genocide is occuring in Kenya.

My concern is that CNN used to be the one network I trusted. They showed both sides. They seperated headline/news shows from opinion shows. I saw a story during the 1996 Olympics where CNN (owned by Ted Turner) ratted out their boss for rounding up homeless and forcibly removing them from Atlana. They earned serious credibility with me that day.

However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with. Since then, CNN has been desperate for ratings and has become a shadow of their former selves.

CBS, like ABC and NBC, tend to have a Liberal slant (just like most talk radio, and Fox News have a Conservative slant). I wonder if partnering with CBS will further the degredation of the network CNN once was.

Re:News (2, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111384)

However, CNN fell to third in ratings behind MSNBC and Fox News, proving that the American public prefer to be spoon-fed biased opinion shows that they know they'll agree with.

I'm sure that's part of it, but speaking for myself I stopped watching CNN because they replaced hard news coverage with gimmicks like iReport, floating pie charts and Star Wars holonet knock offs.

The only serious American television newscast that's left is the PBS Newshour.

Re:News (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111386)

This is a huge misunderstanding of what the hell the 24 hour news cycle means.

news organizations really need to fill about 8 to 10 hours of news programming and the rest is taken up by commentary(or in MSNBC's case, commentary and ZOMG PRISON)

Re:News (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109084)

What's also annoying to me is how their Headline News channel seem to be increasingly populated by talk shows.

FWIW - Fox had Rupert Murdoch on the other day as a commentator on the dufus car bombing incident. As if *HE* were some sort of expert on terrorism.
Of course all he did was mouth the same old fear-mongering bullshit, but I have yet to see CNN interview Ted Turner for his expert opinion on anything - gossip or otherwise.

Re:News (3, Interesting)

bsDaemon (87307) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109740)

isn't causing fear and panic among large swaths of the population in order to affect a political outcome the definition of terrorism? If so, his expert opinion may actually be pretty valid. Just saying.

Re:News (5, Interesting)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109088)

***Maybe CNN could start reporting actual news***

Is there anyone there who knows how to do that? It's a little hard to envision any of the CNN "reporters" pulling a Mika Brzezinski and refusing to read the latest pop-culture garbage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1556022/Paris-Hilton-script-screwed-up-burnt-and-shredded.html [telegraph.co.uk]

Re:News (2, Insightful)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110094)

Mod Parent/GP UP!

We have CNN in our cafeteria at work, and it sickens me to see nothing but "entertainment news". I really don't give a shit what Paris, Lindsey, Madonna, Brad, J-Lo, and the rest of them had for breakfast.

Until one of these "news" organizations gets it, I'll be reading mine online.

Re:News (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32110096)

> Is there anyone there who knows how to do that?

Al Jazeera. Seriously. There is some bias, but the stories themselves are meaty enough that I find I can generally focus on the facts and events, and "subtract out" the reporter's bias (indicated by tone, and by which points get emphasized) reasonably well, whether or not I agree with it.

Re:News (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110382)

Wow, I've never seen that before. Those two guys around her are total, utter douchebags. I feel like a nice beatdown would shut them up for a good while. They're just cowardly bullies picking on a woman who actually has some integrity. If these are the people reporting the news these days, it's no wonder things have become so bad.

Re:News (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111430)

Keith Olbermann quit MSNBC in the 90's over the Lewinski scandal(yes, to return to MSNBC with Countdown)

But this is why I honestly watch MSNBC. If it's the inverse of Fox, it's not because of political biases, it's over the control they exert on their on air talent(Seriously, if MSNBC had a liberal bias, they would've drawn and quartered michael savage instead of you know, giving him a show).

No one else on cable news covered The Family, the secretive religious organization that's got it's roots deep everywhere in washington, like Rachel Maddow did.

Re:News (2, Informative)

Vancorps (746090) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112090)

Rachel Maddow gets away with a lot of surprising stuff. She's unapologetic and out in the open about her biases which I also like. Fox tries to hide it pretending to be fair and balanced. I'll take honesty anyday. Of course CNN is just a joke of its former self. I don't know if you caught the coverage of the tsunami heading for Hawaii, I have a cousin that lives there so we were checking up on the news while it was happening. I found it better just to go online to get my info and CNN was too busy sensationalizing the issue. That was their chance to shine as I stopped watching CNN years ago, I wanted to give it a try again and now it's gonna be another while.

Re:News (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112368)

Seriously, if MSNBC had a liberal bias, they would've drawn and quartered michael savage instead of you know, giving him a show

Fox News has Alan Colmes, Juan Williams, and Geraldo Rivera-- just off the top of my head. O'Reilly has regular correspondents on his show who are left-of-center, but I don't watch that often. So does this mean Fox News isn't biased?

Re:News (2, Insightful)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109276)

Wait, the C doesn't stand for Celebrity?

I can handle the HLN format, it at least is quick and you know when there is news and when there is fluff based on the time. CNN is to news what MTV is to music videos, sure they have it but it seems to not be the focus. Fox is too flashy and the networks are too slanted to provide reporting. The state of broadcast news has forced many of us to use the internet sources that gather it all up in one area (google news is my primary but I will bounce to Drudge for fun)

Re:News (4, Informative)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109576)

CNN does have real news, but for some reason it is limited to the international editions. CNN Europe, while nowhere near BBC World, it is an actual news network, and if you go to the CNN website you can choose between American and International version. Switching back and forth on the CNN website is an intersting eye-opener in what kind of stories they run, and which they ignore.

Very true... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109770)

Just a couple of years ago, you wouldn't have seen any program on CNN US with any reporter's name in it.

They used to have a policy that stated they'd have no celebrity reporters, à la MSNBC. Somewhere along the way that policy changed. I don't know the reasoning behind the change, though. Now we've got Anderson Cooper, Amanpour, Zakaria, etc.

Re:News (-1, Troll)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109692)

I have an alternative suggestion:

DIE CNN DIE DIE DIE!!!

Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32108994)

People would watch. Newstainment with its constant editorializing and presenters that have less acting talent than pro wrestlers make me switch the dial off.

CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy.

Bring back Mac-Neil Lehrer and kill the 24 hour news cycle.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (1, Interesting)

Zeio (325157) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109316)

"CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy."

A democracy is two wolves and sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The US is a constitutional republic. The constitutional goes about limiting the powers of government through 17 prohibitive clauses. (Interestingly enough, the general welfare clause which is used often to expand the federal government far beyond its intended power appears in the midst of a prohibitive clause in reference to taxation apportionment, but hey, why wouldn't James Madison backdoor the constitution just for kicks. Even though he explained in letters that an expansionist view of this clause would render the document useless, but hey, he wrote it, no biggie, modern judges know more than the author about its intent)

Also worth noting is the rights enumerated in the bill of rights was perceived by some as unnecessary as the government just wrought would be so limited the 10th would take care of the rest. Thank goodness for the enumerations we got since "life liberty property" and rights reserved is somehow vague.

Without the protection of a constitution we really don't have much, and majoritarian rule will undoubtedly lead to increasing internal strife. One could argue the march towards majoritarian tyranny is part of an overarching strategy bring about a crisis.

I also have an interesting history on Rule 22 / Filibuster in the Senate.

History of the Filibuster (Rule 22) in the Senate.

A long time ago any Senator could prevent any law simply by talking about it. Any senator could stop the move to cloture. This was by design. Its to make the little states have a lot of power in the face of the big ones because representation in the house is apportioned. Its a simple and clever concept to have a working bicameral house. Its designed to stop tyrants.

Then a certain president named Wilson who brought us gems like the Federal Reserve system by sneaking it through in a December 23rd vote where almost none of congress was present. (He signed it despite the sneak attack) Think recess appointment, but treasonous. A mark of a patriot.

Anyways, Wilson gets his way and the Fed has been using the hidden tax of inflation like a weapon against the people ever since.

Wilson also helped to dupe the states into the 17th Amendment, giving the election of Senators from the State legislature (making the State legislatures more or less irrelevant in the face of today's Fedzilla) and giving it to the people - more democracy (translates to bigger Federal government)! Major shift in power there. Less checking and balancing.

Fast forward to 1917. Wilson wants to bring America to war. The Senate uses a filibuster (then, by any member just not moving to cloture) to stop Wilson's war.

Wilson can't take no and wont tolerate the filibuster, so he has the rules changed. Now a move to cloture happens if TWO THIRDS agree to move. WAR BEGINS. Typical of a tyrant, they like that stuff so it distracts from the failing state and failing policies.

More who urinate on the Constitution come over the years it erodes to THREE Fifths.

First it was one senator.

Then 23

Then 35

See the trend?

As the constitutionality of the Fedzilla comes more and more out of bounds, the more they want to force the Senate to enact unconstitutional laws.

Now we have acting federal congressman saying:

QUOTE
"It is time to shut it down"
"God didn't create the filibuster, it's part of the Senate rules."
"It is outrageous"
"It tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states that aggregate to get up to be the 40."
"Less populous states end up with a disproportionate amount of power."

This was the design of the bicameral house. This is what the senate was supposed to do. Obstruct, slow down and make sure the disaffected get their say in Fedzilla lest they be crushed by majoritarian politics. It was designed to stop 51% wiping away the 49%.

Anyways, always irritating to see people adopt NEWSPEAK, especially in regards to the constitutional and the Framer's intent. Changing the meaning of words is the next best thing to banning literacy for tyrants.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109888)

What the hell are you tirading about? This has nothing to do with CNN/CBS. This is not a civics or Senate rules post

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109922)

You do realize that because of another rule change the filibuster is now way to easy to do, right? You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote. That isn't the way it was when Madison was around, and according to your originalist view, he was all knowing. So let's go back to the point where you actually have to be willing to sacrifice to stand for your principles in the face of a majority.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (1)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110290)

41

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111410)

You don't have to actually put any effort into a filibuster... all you have to do is say "we got 40" and you can't vote.

That's the fault of the majority leader, not the minority that's using the filibuster.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32111916)

That's the fault of the majority leader, not the minority that's using the filibuster.

Say what? It's a failure on the part of the majority when there is actually independent thought in the Senate? I wish we had more of it right now. Maybe it would stop some of the idiocy that's being portrayed as "governing" right now.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (2, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110898)

If there's one thing that the founding fathers certainly would balk at, it's the God-like reverence with which they and their document are treated with today.

Although I support the rule of law, the constitution was written almost 225 years ago, for a union of 13 states. Much has changed since then, and the constitution provides an amendment process for this very purpose.

The filibuster rule made sense when there were only 26 senators -- as the number climbed to 100, it became increasingly obvious that it was no longer suitable, as a grandstanding politician could effectively block any piece of legislation, which was increasingly probable as the size of the Senate grew.

Similarly, advances in communications and transportation have made state lines increasingly irrelevant (your rant is a "states rights" thing, right?). It's no surprise that, as people traveled and traded from state-to-state that the federal government would grow in size and importance. The states have also done few favors to themselves, as their governments have proven time and time again to be corrupt and ineffective over the past several decades.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32111868)

I know, I know. totally.

The Soviet Constitution of 1936 has a lot more rights in it! Rights ot education, right to vacation! Right to work! And the the USSR constitution changed all the time.

Way better, of course.

The founders wanted something like that for us, right!

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32112416)

This coming from a young buck who is a big fan of "The Decemberists"

Yeah, you know what America's about, you've paid your fair share of taxes, you know what its all about.

Go on, tell the world how it should be run with your vast erudite knowledge accrued over many years of experience.

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112524)

Texas is just like Massachusetts? Really? It isn't even much like California, three states away. Each state has a unique culture and a unique government. We have to preserve this because it lets citizens "vote with their feet" and leave state governments that are doing a poor job. Of course, since much of the USA is starting to buy into the idea of a global government, it's getting harder to people to even understand how important United States sovereignty is, much less state sovereignty. Why anyone would expect some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to give a crap about them is beyond me. Since I can't depend on a foreign bureaucrat to address my concerns, I'd rather keep the freedom and power to myself and my local community, where I can really effect "change I can believe in".

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32111130)

Go Back to the Licking Beck's Blackboard you TeaBagging Douche!

Re:Maybe if they just reported the damn news! (3, Informative)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110144)

CNN/FOX going out of business due to low ratings is actually GOOD for US Democracy.

Fox News is not going out of business due to low ratings (or any other reason) currently. Fox News actually gets decent ratings and their ratings are steadily improving.

How to save CNN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109004)

Jay Rosen on saving CNN [nyu.edu]

I'm not sure that everything he says is a good idea, but he's much more on the right track than CNN is. By combining two bad operations into one, you don't create anything good. All you create is one bad operation. These companies need to revamp their programming from the ground up.

CNN sucks a big fat dick. Dont ruin 60 minutes!! (0, Troll)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109012)

60 Minutes is probably the last thing we have on major networks that we can consider journalism.

CNN is worthless trash and now I'm not a Fox news fan.

PBS's NOW, and Frontline are fantastic.. but they're PBS...

The 3 major news networks are a fucking wasteland of information.

Although I do like Rachael Maddow quite a bit.

MPAA News (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109262)

The 3 major news networks are a fucking wasteland of information.

What did you expect from MPAA News [pineight.com] ?

Re:CNN sucks a big fat dick. Dont ruin 60 minutes! (2, Informative)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111154)

If you really want to know what is going on in the US the best way is to login to BBC news website or get a subscription to BBCAmerican and watch your news there. ITN News is pretty good too and they have that hot Indian chic who is easy on the eyes.

CNNCBS (2, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109060)

Ha! Its coming true [wikipedia.org] .

how to improve their ratings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109074)

How about we start with getting the sensationalists removed from the newsroom, starting with Nancy Gracy.

Clone Walter Cronkie from his DNA. (3, Insightful)

EWAdams (953502) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109090)

If they really want to retain viewers, they might... I dunno... try actual journalism and integrity. It worked for Walt.

Re:Clone Walter Cronkie from his DNA. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32110462)

And that's the way news was.

Re:Clone Walter Cronkie from his DNA. (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110716)

CNN was probably the best network when it came to journalism and integrity initially, and then Fox News and MSNBC trashed CNN in the ratings. Now they'll do anything to catch up.

Tabloids are the best selling newspapers in the world. Since when did journalism and integrity sell?

In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32109092)

I suppose now they'll be able to compete with the Al Jazeera-Fox News-Walt Disney cartel. What? I wasn't supposed to say that? I'm sorry Mickey, please don't AAAARGH!

CBS news = NNS (2, Informative)

martin (1336) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109104)

Funny 'cos CBS joined up with ABC and Fox News Channel to create the Network news Service in response to CNN over 20 years ago.

If this goes ahead the USA will have 1 big news service for TV news - maybe some sort of competition commission might block this?

Re:CBS news = NNS (2, Insightful)

tnok85 (1434319) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109110)

Doubtful. They'd just organize it as a 'government regulated monopoly' in the best interest of the viewers. Then they could make sure that we only get the news we need.

Re:CBS news = NNS (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109274)

If this goes ahead the USA will have 1 big news service for TV news

We already do. The only major TV news source that doesn't share a parent company with a U.S. movie studio [slashdot.org] is the Public Broadcasting Service.

Re:CBS news = NNS (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110184)

We already do. The only major TV news source that doesn't share a parent company with a U.S. movie studio [slashdot.org] is the Public Broadcasting Service.

Ah, maybe that explains why we have to hear about the American Idol "news".

Re:CBS news = NNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32111136)

In the Tulsa area, all the local news broadcasts have a daily "American Idol" segment that is just as important to them as weather and sports (FOX23* especially--go figure).

I can imagine that other areas in this country suffer from it as well.

*is a ClearChannel station if that means anything..

Re:CBS news = NNS (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111476)

We already do. The only major TV news source that doesn't share a parent company with a U.S. movie studio is the Public Broadcasting Service.

What do movies have to do with the News?

I mean, other than the bizarre fixation with MPAA the /. crowd has?

I mean, Fuck the MPAA, they're evil, but, there's a lot going on in the world than just movies and TV.

How MPAA membership distorts coverage (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111954)

What do movies have to do with the News?

TV news tends to bury stories about legislation that helps the movie studios more than it helps the end users. Think back to 1998: did any channel show a balanced report on the Copyright Term Extension Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? And how many channels have run a story about ACTA?

Synonym for make: (2, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109114)

Fabricate.

More media consolidation...its about time (3, Funny)

Conspire (102879) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109126)

This is very heartwarming. It is about time we had some media consolidation. It will surely help remove the bias stemming from the extremely fragmented ownership and production base of the mainstream media of today.........

Making News (0)

codeButcher (223668) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109214)

CBS and CNN Could Be Making News Together

When things go wrong, journos are quick to point out that they only report what is happening. That's the academic theory they've been taught, in any case.

Making news by omission (3, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109286)

When things go wrong, journos are quick to point out that they only report what is happening. That's the academic theory they've been taught, in any case.

Journos "make" news in what they choose to report and not to report. For example, which of the MPAA-controlled U.S. TV news organizations has reported on ACTA?

Re:Making news by omission (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111396)

Looks like via a quick search on TV news, that would be Fox as they had Michael Geist on. No one else has reported on it.

Re:Making News (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110264)

CBS and CNN Could Be Making News Together

When things go wrong, journos are quick to point out that they only report what is happening. That's the academic theory they've been taught, in any case.

If it were only true. Too bad they all seem to feel the need to put their own personal bias (left or right, they all seem to) on most stories.

Or, maybe we could get Joey Senat, an associate professor of journalism at Oklahoma State University to tell us how it's supposed to work. http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/05/04/1929208/RFID-Checks-Student-Attendance-in-Arizona [slashdot.org]

CNN, time to do *something* (3, Insightful)

jgreco (1542031) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109258)

A large percentage of the links off the CNN homepage these days are to the ireport web site, and they don't even differentiate them anymore like they used to. As a general rule, I don't care to see amateur news reporting, and this has been one reason I've used CNN less lately. I'd rather have less news but have it be high quality.

More To Viewership Losses (1, Insightful)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109458)

"More proof of the profound impact cable, the Internet, and other outlets have had on broadcast news organizations..."

The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments have also become increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Progressive agenda and the Obama administration has also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people look elsewhere for more objective sources.

Strat

Re:More To Viewership Losses (0)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110842)

The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments have also become increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Progressive agenda and the Obama administration has also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people look elsewhere for more objective sources.

The fact that their hard news as well as their editorial/opinion shows/segments also became increasingly-shameless cheerleaders for the Conservative agenda and the Bush administration also heavily contributed to their viewership losses as ever-larger numbers of people looked elsewhere for more objective sources.

I just had a skin-crawl moment. Try this with me: Click on the first google result for "top ten media conglomerates [google.com] ". Now go try and look it up on the wayback machine. I'll be patient. Most sites don't take down one of their most popular and thus most click-generating pieces of content...

Now I know I'm being astroturf-modded (0, Troll)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112568)

Modded -1, overrated so that no adjective appears next to my comment's score, in an attempt to be sneaky — some people check out negative moderations to see who is doing what, after all. How much do you get for that line of work? I note that I've picked up another couple of Overrated mods elsewhere on comments which otherwise have overwhelmingly positive moderation. Stop following me around, douche.

Good luck to them (4, Insightful)

davmoo (63521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109496)

I hope they succeed at making news by merging, because they sure as hell can't report it. Using the words "journalism" and "CNN" in the same sentence has got to be the oxymoron of the year. And CBS isn't that much better any more.

Who Cares? (1)

dammy (131759) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109656)

With their combine number of people watching either, who cares? Evidently not the American public with what ratings they are generating. Maybe Soros will come and buy both networks so he has his propaganda machine in tact.

Re:Good luck to them (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110206)

The headline is misleading, it should read "CBS and CNN Could Be Making Up News Together."

Re:Good luck to them (2, Informative)

FriendlyPrimate (461389) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111044)

I have to disagree. IMHO, out of the 3 major cable news networks (CNN, Fox, MSNBC), CNN is the best, and appears to try to report news without a liberal or conservative slant. The problem is that unbiased news is BORING! It's much more entertaining to watch Maddow duke it out with Beck. And so their ratings are horrible.

That's not to say CNN isn't a horrible network with way too much time spent on mindless drivel, but they are the best of the worst major cable news outlets.

It's sad, but one of the best places to get real news isn't even from any of the news outlets anymore....it's from the Daily Show.

Re:Good luck to them (1)

GrumblyStuff (870046) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111800)

News networks are stupid. They always fill up with crap because good reporting takes too much time and/or money while gossiping about celebs (ugh) is cheap and quick. Trying to fill 24 hours of news without using news from the entire world is just fucking moronic.

Re:Good luck to them (1)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112584)

I have watched all three networks (side by side) for several hours at a time. I find more real news reporting on FOX every hour than the other two combined. When watching news information FOX is far less biased. They are showing all sides. The pundits are definitely more conservative and intellectual than the other two combined as well.

At what point... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109682)

Do we just pull the plug?

Broadcast "news" consumes some extraordinarily valuable spectrum, a resource fairly tightly limited by the laws of physics. We have historically suffered it to do so because of its perceived value to our democratic society. If, however, it cannot demonstrate that value, there are much better things we could be doing with that scarce and valuable spectrum...

Re:At what point... (1)

dcw3 (649211) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110330)

Do we just pull the plug?

Broadcast "news" consumes some extraordinarily valuable spectrum, a resource fairly tightly limited by the laws of physics. We have historically suffered it to do so because of its perceived value to our democratic society. If, however, it cannot demonstrate that value, there are much better things we could be doing with that scarce and valuable spectrum...

While I'm not a fan of the current network "news", I can't believe you think there's not enough spectrum space for them, unless you want to pull the home shopping network, cartoon network, etc., all at once. What's in such dire need of bandwidth, that can't fit in?

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32110874)

Blasphemy! How dare you group the cartoon network with the 24-hour news and shopping networks!

Re:At what point... (1)

jfengel (409917) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112106)

CNN, at least, is not consuming any spectrum. The "C" stands for "cable".

The broadcast spectrum is not as limited as it used to be. Between the switch to digital broadcasting and most viewers switching away from over-the-air altogether, broadcast news is certainly anachronistic. But evening newscasts from the Big Three are still viewed by 20 million people per night, and that's a pretty considerable chunk.

CBS is the least of them, but 5 million people a night still watch it. That's only a quarter of American Idol, the top-rated show, but it's more than other things in the prime time lineup (3.4 million for America's Next Top Model; 4.9 million for The Middle [admittedly, a rerun].)

All told, the nightly news on the three networks gets more viewers than American Idol.

Re:At what point... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32112496)

Do we just pull the plug?

Well, once America is truly down to a single source of "news" voice, I doubt the option to pull the plug will exist. Here is the news, you will repeat it. You know, we used to make fun of societies like this...

How Sad (1)

Iffie (1410897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109722)

Yes, it is sooo expensive to make news..Who cares, it is the MSM, it is all weaksauce propagande anyway.

New name? (2, Insightful)

Briareos (21163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32109936)

So are they going to call it "CNNBS"?

Re:New name? (2, Insightful)

BlindSpot (512363) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110598)

So are they going to call it "CNNBS"?

That would be appropriate, since CNN has been spewing nothing but BS for years now.

UCk! (-1, Troll)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110032)

CBS News has a very conservative slant whereas CNN is more neutral. As far as news content goes there is a real conflict.
                ABC News also seems to be moving towards the right a bit as well. It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes. Right now America needs to be digging deep and exposing crooks and crooked companies.

Re: UCk! (4, Informative)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110244)

It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes.

Click your remote a few times and you'll eventually hit upon MSNBC... they're about as liberal as they come.

As far as "deep investigations", well, why would these networks do any thorough investigating when the latest newsbyte comes from the next viewer email, complete with camphone video? Not saying it's right, just that seems to be the way everything is headed.

Re: UCk! (0, Flamebait)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110250)

CBS News has a very conservative slant whereas CNN is more neutral. As far as news content goes there is a real conflict. ABC News also seems to be moving towards the right a bit as well. It's a shame that we have no news service dedicated to deep investigations and aiding the liberal causes. Right now America needs to be digging deep and exposing crooks and crooked companies.

The reason that we don't have any news service dedicated to "deep investigation and aiding liberal causes" is because most of the stuff that needs deep investigation is being done by organizations that are trying to aid liberal causes (for example, ACORN). So, any news organization that is dedicated to aiding liberal causes, doesn't want to investigate deeply (they might discover that Goldman Sachs is run by Democrats).

all of these mindlessly negative comments (1, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110098)

folks:

there was never a fabled era where news media was unbiased or high quality. look up the term "yellow journalism" from a century ago. the spanish american war was started with the "bombing" of the uss maine in havana that was just as much bullshit as iraq's supposed nuclear program. the newspaper "reporting" from a century ago makes fox faux news blatant warmongering agenda look like amateur hour

additionally, there never will be such a thing as unbiased news media. ever. here. in russia. in china. in europe. never, anwyhere

all news media has a bias. GET USED TO IT. accept it, and shut up with the bogus complaints

to criticize news media from a judgment of its bias or not simply means you yourself are hopelessly naive and ignorant about the reality of what news media is or ever could be. furthermore, it presupposes a frightening concept: that, in some magical realm, news media actually somehow could be completely unbiased... which means everyone would trust it implicitly. obviously, complete trust in your news media is far more frightening a concept than the fact news media has some bias

so the solution? get your news FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. read nytimes, bbc, npr, msnbc, cnn, hell even fox news, china daily, and the tehran times:

http://www.tehrantimes.com/ [tehrantimes.com]

its all propaganda, its all biased, every news source you could ever possibly find. the only error you could ever make is trusting one and only one source of news: then you have failed

in this way, you will train yourself to have a good bullshit meter, and you learn to trust nothing. THAT's the only valid and intellectually coherent approach you could ever possibly have to news media, in this lifetime or any other

so please, shut the fuck up with complaints about quality and bias: such a basis for complaints only reveal your own inadequate grasp of the topic: what news media is, and how it should fit into your life

They would have to make news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32110124)

There simply isn't enough real news to be covered by 24 hour TV, magazines, major network night news, and the news on the radio.

I'm not addicted to news or anything, but by listening to NPR on my 20 minute commute to and from work and the random stuff that flows on the internet (I don't visit the dedicated news sites), I'm as aware of the news as anyone.

Take for example the Toyota gas pedal thing. It was overplayed until I was sick of it, and then it just stopped. Was there a resolution? Or did it just stop being news as quickly as it became news?

CNN's ratings need a jump-start? (4, Insightful)

brxndxn (461473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110318)

That's the problem. CNN cares about ratings. That means they care about the short term at the expense of their reputation as a viable news organization.

Here's a quick fact for all of you TV executives: YOUR RATINGS ARE GOING DOWN BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE MORE OPTIONS. Quit trying to build this 'one size fits all morons' news channel and start actually reporting news. Hollywood gossip belongs on the Entertainment channel. Quick one-liners and talking heads belong on the Commentary channel. Crazy banners trying to get me all worked up over the world's dumbest terrorist (ya.. that guy from Pakistan recently) belong on the Fear channel. Instead, CNN includes all these things and then calls it the News channel. Seriously? CNN, right now, you are stupider than your audience. You target an audience of stupid people with even stupider content. Even stupid people want to get smarter.

Right now, if you watched CNN all day 24/7, you would not know who your lawmakers are, you would not know which countries are where or what their political system is, understand any non-simplistic political or social situations, understand social and market changes or direction, hear more than a single sentence from a single person at a time without her being interrupted, hear about any real dirt or corruption involved with any affiliated corporation, or understand the real 'world situation.' So, it's entertainment - not news.

And, you talking head assholes (that's pretty much every CNN reporter except Jack Cafferty), IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB TO SET THE AGENDA FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Quit trying to tell people how to think. Quit identifying any political candidates as 'non-viable' or 'a longshot' or 'fringe' before you talk about them without letting people decide for themselves. Quit having opinions on everything. Quit being condescending to less educated people trying to make a difference in less affluent areas. Quit fabricating shit out of nothing - If there was a device that people thought was a bomb, but was determined not to be a bomb, don't report that it was a bomb! Quit talking only about buzzword political issues like abortion, gun control, and prayer in schools - like they are the only political problems facing the US. Quit wasting our time.

Re:CNN's ratings need a jump-start? (2, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110746)

IT'S NOT YOUR FUCKING JOB TO SET THE AGENDA FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

Ten media conglomerates own about 95% of the media in the USA and over 50% of the media in the world. CNN is owned by Time Warner, the world's second largest entertainment conglomerate.[1] These corporations have been telling Americans who they may vote for at least since the first media conglomerates were permitted to exist. IIRC this had to do with J.P. Morgan, but I'm short on citations right now. In any case, it is the media's job to set the agenda for the American people. They don't work for the people — they don't answer to them. People will buy that which is advertised to them. And they do.

[1] Time Warner. (2010, May 6). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 13:43, May 6, 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Time_Warner&oldid=360506188 [wikipedia.org]

add this up (1)

kpjlfm (1362781) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110384)

0+0 does not equal one (viewer). These two media outlets need to team up with something successful in order to survive. Just look how XM/Sirius has done since their merger.

Those tags again! (1)

lemur3 (997863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110628)

Hey! who is the wise guy who put !newsfornerds as a tag for this story?...

Maybe it is a sign of the times when two historically big news organizations coming together is no longer nerdy enough for people to watch or care about.....or discuss..

We're Halfway There! (1)

BlindSpot (512363) | more than 4 years ago | (#32110656)

That psychic at Lisa's Wedding wasn't far off! This partnership means we're halfway towards CNNBCBS (A Division of ABC).

Replace the News with the Henson Company! (1)

jameskojiro (705701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111204)

I would love to see the Pangea Report with Howard Handupme, or Edward R Hero.

Maybe even break between programming with a Muppet News Flash.

Hahaha! Look! In the slime pit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32111464)

They're eating each other!

Ron Paul gets cut off when speaking the truth (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111472)

When Ron Paul is on cable news networks, and starts talking about the 1953 Coup de tat, he is cut off immediately and they break to commercial. Both Fox and CNN are guilty of this. I don't believe that we have Freedom of the Press in this country for that reason and many others. We have New York Times reporters thrown in jail for leaking information that can hurt the administration.

We need the country to wake their brain dead asses up and do a little bit of research rather than just following the talking heads of CNN and Fox. I think the 1953 Coup de tat has a little bit more historical significance than Britney Spears ass in a windshield. Why do they always seem to have time for the latter? Seems fishy to me.

Well played, dinosaurs. (1)

joedoc (441972) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111480)

Let's see...

CBS News is in the ratings tank, despite paying buckets of money to people like Katie Couric, one of the worst "news reporters" in television history. No one is watching there.

CNN's prime-time news show ratings are routinely beaten by cable infomercials shown at three in the morning. Nothing there either.

So, they're going to merge and hope this raises ratings?

What could possibly go wrong?

Yup, CNN and Sony commonality (1)

A_Non_Moose (413034) | more than 4 years ago | (#32111738)

Both had a point in time when their names meant something good, now

"It's a Sony" and "This is CNN" only server as warning labels.

And a merger? I'm sure it'll work out as well as MSNBC has, if you're going for
two single digit viewer-ships, one might actually make it to double digits.

CNN's ratings (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32112070)

I work in the TV news industry and know quite a few people at CNN. If you ask any of them what their ratings problem is all about, Anderson Cooper's name inevitably comes up. He's mostly referred to as "Anderson Pooper." Folks are mystified as to why he continues to be their prime time anchor when he continuously talks in the ratings.

Liberal Rag (0, Flamebait)

codepunk (167897) | more than 4 years ago | (#32112158)

All of these news organizations need to remove the political slant from the reporting. Every since CNN turned into a liberal rag I quit watching it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?