The point Goldberg made is that the networks recite the news of the day but almost never offer interesting analysis, and don’t often break important stories. The anchors come across as people who are good at reading canned copy off teleprompters but don’t stand out as serious journalists. He asks when was the last time someone told you absolutely needed to check out CBS News or NBC News or ABC News because they had something urgent to report. Not in a long time. Yet just look at Mediaite, and you see heated discussions about notable happenings on cable news all the time. Hard to disagree with this.

I probably should preface this comment with the disclaimer that I generally don’t watch the network news on broadcast for the reasons stated, but…

It’s kind of ironic that O’Reilly and Goldberg are taking swings at the news divisions with the same rhetoric that people have been using for years. In other words, what’s their “new idea”?

And, I personally would be less likely to watch the newscasts or clips, if it’s a bunch talking heads telling me what they think because I don’t care what they think, they don’t know any more than me. I’d much rather see Lara Logan reporting from a war zone or Brian Ross’s report from last week, where they “tricked” a Toyota into overriding the computerized failsafe system… both things which are generally clipped and repeated over the internet, both “new” material and neither was just some guy reciting talking points.

PS) I’m not going to look for the specific wording, but Cronkite once said something about the nightly newscasts having fewer words than the front page of a daily paper.

If you want “analysis”… buy a paper, go to nytimes.com, watch Bill O’Reilly and if you want a recap of the day’s events, tune into Katie at 6:30 or watch Diane via Hulu.

O’Reilly has no business even talking about news shows. He has no clue as to what a news show is. Of course he probably read something in that “Paris Business Review” about them. You know, that magazine that doesn’t even exist and he just made up.

Former CBS correspondent Bernie Goldberg was on The Factor tonight promoting his new book “A Slobbering Love Affair” (not the good kind)…

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Wanna know something interesting? Bernie Golberg and Bill O’Reilly never mentioned the book, “A Slobbering Love Affair,” on tonight’s show.

WHAAAAAAAAAT?

Yeah, that’s right… Ol’ Drew, it seems is making stuff up! How fun!

Again, quote Drew, “Bernie Goldberg was on The Factor tonight promoting his new book “A Slobbering Love Affair” “

Hey Drew, where’d you get that part?! How does someone promote a book, without ever mentioning it?Did you watch the segment? Are you aware of what really happened? Where are you getting your info?

HEY COLBY, what’s going on here?!

I just watched that clip. I can’t believe Goldberg was naming off people on Fox and 2 of them he named were Karl Rove and Dick Morris. He said you learn things from them. LEARN THINGS FROM THEM? The only thing you’d learn from them is how much they hate Democrats and Morris is how much he hates the Clintons.

the real john t says:
March 2, 2010 at 1:24 am

I just watched that clip.

If only “just watched the clip,” how did you comment on it 30 minutes prior? I guess it was just another, “copy/paste – I don’t like Bill O’Reilly” comment, huh? Not really relevant, just more hate. Got it.

@ ImNotBlue

You can’t read very well can you? I didn’t comment on the clip 30mins ago. I just commented on the article. So before you start making a complete ass of yourself, why don’t you slither back under the rock you came out from under.

the real john t says:
March 2, 2010 at 1:48 am

You can’t read very well can you?

Yeah, that must be it.

I didn’t comment on the clip 30mins ago. I just commented on the article.

I’m sorry, I forget… what was the article about, again? Ohh… it was about the segment from the show (which I’ve already told you was written falsely). So you wrote a comment, about a segment you never saw, based on information that wasn’t necessarily accurate. Niiiice.

Of course, if that’s the case… doesn’t that mean that your comment was, let’s say, useless? I suppose it didn’t really matter what the clip was about, just as long as it was a clip of O’Reilly… and you would have found something nasty to say, right? I must have forgotten again… I thought this was a comments section… not MadLibs… although, it is starting to make more sense.

“Bill O’Reilly shouldn’t talk about ‘topic’, he doesn’t know anything about ‘topic’ and is a ‘name call’. O’Reilly is a ‘more name calling’, and should ‘inappropriate suggestion’.”

Got it.

So before you start making a complete ass of yourself,

Oh please, let it be advice. I wanna be just like you!

why don’t you slither back under the rock you came out from under.

I’ll tell you what… I won’t go back under the rock, but I will go to bed! That way, you can spend the rest of the night, writing comments based on things you haven’t seen… comments that are thusly interchangeable and irrelevant to the topic at hand… but it feeds the hate, so it all works out I’m sure.

Later buddy!

Well, I see you didn’t take my advice. Because now you HAVE made a complete ass of yourself.

Good night, and by all means, good luck.

“While they [the three network nightly news programs] have steadily shed viewers, to a cumulative 22 million in 2009, from about 50 million in 1980….” (NYTimes)

US population 1980- 226,545,805
US population 2010 est.- 315,534,716

“While doing some recent research on the news business, I came upon this remarkable fact: Katie Couric’s annual salary is more than the entire annual budgets of NPR’s Morning Edition and All Things Considered combined. Couric’s salary comes to an estimated $15 million a year; NPR spends $6 million a year on its morning show and $5 million on its afternoon one. NPR has seventeen foreign bureaus (which costs it another $9.4 million a year); CBS has twelve. Few figures, I think, better capture the absurd financial structure of the network news…
We don’t yet know how much Sawyer is going to be paid, but it will no doubt surpass Gibson’s current estimated salary of $8 million. Sawyer will thus be perpetuating the corrosive, top-heavy system of the network news.”

(Michael Massing, Columbia Journalism Review )

I’m not sure I think O’Reilly or Goldberg have much to offer on this subject. They are both unhappy with their careers, or lack thereof, on legitimate television and eager to share their bitterness and frustration with us. On one point, however, a subtle point, to be sure, it seems that the shrinking interest in broadcast news benefits much more internet news than it does cable news. Cable news may be nearing a saturation point, while the internet seems to be growing at rapid fire pace. This is where earlier discussions about CNN’s strong internet presence becomes so relevant. FOX has long lagged in internet development, with Ailes initially taking a quasi-independent Fan Klub and Detractor Klub approach which seems not to have worked so well. Then, we had an encouraging development with Greta Watch which was too quickly hijacked by racists and conspiracy theorists, with almost no effort to discourage them. FOX is still struggling with the correct internet approach, while CNN seems to have been perfecting it. At any rate, the standard has been set, and I am sure FOX will eventually meet it, as best it can. I think FOX may always be a bit handicapped because it lacks the same youthful, energetic and intelligent draw, broadly speaking, which CNN has had. If I were looking 20 years out, I’d say network news will have only a modest footing, still far greater than cable “news,” and cable “news” will tire of the pretense that it is news and become even more strongly commentary and fluff.

CNN has been so successful, Fox News should model themselves after them.

ImNotSmart is back! The boy that nobody likes around here. Glad to see her* back, though!

Man your little hard-on for O’Reilly is raging! I imagine that you get this heated/teary when people attack folks you ACTUALLY know. But, your pants are throbbing little guy. We’ll refrain from talking about your “man” Bill-O. We don’t want you to lose that load you’re saving up…. Later Buddy! (hahaha — you don’t have many friends, do you?)

the real john t says:
March 2, 2010 at 3:01 am

Well, I see you didn’t take my advice. Because now you HAVE made a complete ass of yourself.

NOOOOOOOO! JohnT doesn’t like me! NOOOOO!

Good night, and by all means, good luck.

Well, as long as someone else on this site doesn’t comment that they don’t like me… or use schoolyard insults to ignore my initial post, highlighting Drew’s lie, I think I’ll be okay…

tjl says:
March 2, 2010 at 11:49 am

ImNotSmart is back! The boy that nobody likes around here. Glad to see her* back, though!

NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Oh, sob. Oh, cry. What every will I do… now that TWO people don’t like me!

Aaaaaaaaand… I’m over it.

*Yawn* My own little stalker, tjl, trying to get attention from his favorite commentator. Really, I’m blushing.

Man your little hard-on for O’Reilly is raging!

tjl… you gotta stop thinking about my pants. You’re not getting in them, it’s never gonna happen.

I imagine that you get this heated/teary when people attack folks you ACTUALLY know.

Exactly where did I get heated… or even defend O’Reilly? (It’s coming, but prior to this… what exactly did I say?) Oh… and it takes a lot more than this to get me heated… especially this morning because my heat and hot water aren’t working. Brrr.

But, your pants are throbbing little guy.

Again, tjl… no means no. I’m just not that into you.

We’ll refrain from talking about your “man” Bill-O.

Eh… you could trying being honest… that would be a good first step. I know it’s a lot of effort.

We don’t want you to lose that load you’re saving up….

You and your fantasies are really vivid, aren’t they. Um… ew.

Later Buddy! (hahaha — you don’t have many friends, do you?)

Well, I’ve got you, and isn’t that all I need? Of course, you follow me around a bit, so… I guess you’re begging for my friendship too. Ironic, isn’t it.

The Real Royal King says:
March 2, 2010 at 7:56 am

I’m not sure I think O’Reilly or Goldberg have much to offer on this subject. They are both unhappy with their careers, or lack thereof, on legitimate television and eager to share their bitterness and frustration with us.

HAHAHA! O’Reilly has the top rated cable news program for how many years… and how many best seller books… and broadcast ratings spike whenever he’s on one of those programs… and you think his career isn’t going so well?! HAHAHA! Oh, and Goldberg had a long career, and then semi-retired… he now has how many best seller books… and is employed by the biggest name in cable news… and you think his career isn’t doing so well?!

HA! We should all have careers that go so “poorly.”

But seriously… if that’s your standard… what does that say about Olbermann (the only time he can get on the broadcasts, is when he’s taking about football… ouch), and what does that say about Maddow? I guess in your book, they’re all bitter failures too?

On one point, however, a subtle point, to be sure, it seems that the shrinking interest in broadcast news benefits much more internet news than it does cable news.

Well, cable news ratings have been going up… on FNC… so what does that tell you? Isn’t there a correlation, or is that an unrelated point?

_______________________________

Anyone want to talk about by Drew Grant was able to lie in his description of this story? Hey Drew… any “correction,” or explanation coming?

Whoops… “talk about HOW Drew Grant was able to lie”…

Hahaha. I love that you have this much time on your hands ImNotSmart. Seems like I pegged you. Smooches!

tjl says:
March 2, 2010 at 2:01 pm

I love that WE have this much time!

I envy you, Blue. My stalker has quit speaking to me.