Democrats planting fake doctors...

[chevysoldier]

I can't speak for everyone (HAH!) but I imagine he's qualified because he is a Harvard law graduate Magna Cum Laude (best possible level of acheivement), where he also served as President of the Harvard Law Review. He also has a degree in political science and international relations from Columbia University. How about 15-20 years experience in local, state and federal government, community organizing, helping the poor for little/no pay, including teaching people how to stand up for their own rights against powerful interests (like insurance companies and greedy corporations)

Not just 'cuz his daddy was president. and not that his faintcy book learnin' will make no nevermind to y'all.

print and broadcast, mostly. Both of which have splooged over into interactive media aka the Innanets

I asked how it was right to vote for him just because of his color. I never said he was qualified or not, but color is not a qualification so why would people vote for him for that reason alone? And as for W, you are saying you have never stubled over your words? Because he tried not to just use the teleprompter? But Obama uses the teleprompter and gets how far through it before he realizes its not even the right one?

What kind of stories do you "edit" to appeal to a certain audience?

[ChickOn2]

I asked how it was right to vote for him just because of his color. I never said he was qualified or not, but color is not a qualification so why would people vote for him for that reason alone? And as for W, you are saying you have never stubled over your words? Because he tried not to just use the teleprompter?

What kind of stories do you "edit" to appeal to a certain audience?

Punkin, a fundamental principle of public speaking is using cues, and yes, a teleprompter. It's standard procedure for important addresses to be be written and transcribed onto a teleprompter. That's just about everyone on TV, newscasters, sportscasters, and absolutely politicians.

Most federal level politicians have speech writers on staff. Obama and Bush included. Addresses as a rule are prewritten, heavily edited by a giant staff of experts on whatever you can think of, then go through another layer of approvals before the POTUS even sees it.

The lovable but laughable difference bw W and Obama is that without speechwriters, W can't speak his way out of a paper bag. Bless his little heart. And Barack Obama... well.. he is an attorney. He has had plenty of education and experience on public speaking and debate. which is why he holds his own with or without cues.

I won't sit here and say that NO ONE voted for the president because of his color, because we both know that's bullshit. My dad (he has some REAL old skool ideas.. he grew up during a difficult time to be black) will be the first one to tell you why he voted for Obama. But hell, he also voted for Jesse Jackson.

But in return, I don't want you to try to tell me that PLENTY of people voted against him because he black, too. deal?

[ChickOn2]

What kind of stories do you "edit" to appeal to a certain audience?

whoops... forgot to answer that part, sorry

everything you can think of. anything as harmless as a festival coverage to as important as election stories.

I don't get to do it myself much anymore, but I have a staff of reporters who know how to "write to order."

For example, sometimes we run the same story in different editions of the paper (nowadays... we run different editions based on the internet user's ZIP code or other demographics we can gather). The urban center of town will get something slightly different than the wealthy suburbs. Same facts, just rearranged to appeal to that demographic. Or sometimes we will withhold stories for one area of town, that we will provide full blown in another. It's bidniss as usual.

It's not always executed perfectly, either. sometimes the wrong version will run in the wrong area and we will get pounded with negative feedback from readers/viewers. Ever notice how local TV news stories are really short? like 20-30 seconds per topic? it's because it's a general broadcast to all audiences. The less we say, the less chance we have of offending one segment or another.

[chevysoldier]

Punkin, a fundamental principle of public speaking is using cues, and yes, a teleprompter. It's standard procedure for important addresses to be be written and transcribed onto a teleprompter. That's just about everyone on TV, newscasters, sportscasters, and absolutely politicians.

Most federal level politicians have speech writers on staff. Obama and Bush included. Addresses as a rule are prewritten, heavily edited by a giant staff of experts on whatever you can think of, then go through another layer of approvals before the POTUS even sees it.

The lovable but laughable difference bw W and Obama is that without speechwriters, W can't speak his way out of a paper bag. Bless his little heart. And Barack Obama... well.. he is an attorney. He has had plenty of education and experience on public speaking and debate. which is why he holds his own with or without cues.

I won't sit here and say that NO ONE voted for the president because of his color, because we both know that's bullshit. My dad (he has some REAL old skool ideas.. he grew up during a difficult time to be black) will be the first one to tell you why he voted for Obama. But hell, he also voted for Jesse Jackson.

But in return, I don't want you to try to tell me that PLENTY of people voted against him because he black, too. deal?

I know people voted against him cuz he was black, no doubt about it. So because people voted against him cuz of his color its okay to vote for him for the same reason?

But because Bush couldn't speak very well means he was a bumbling idiot? And you will sit there and make fun of the way he talks (which is ok) but it's not ok for someone to make a comment about Obama being black? Yeah a person who stumble's on their words is not capable of being a president. How many times did you here Obama say "uhh...ummm...uhh...umm...uhh...umm" Thats no different.

[chevysoldier]

whoops... forgot to answer that part, sorry

everything you can think of. anything as harmless as a festival coverage to as important as election stories.

I don't get to do it myself much anymore, but I have a staff of reporters who know how to "write to order."

For example, sometimes we run the same story in different editions of the paper (nowadays... we run different editions based on the internet user's ZIP code or other demographics we can gather). The urban center of town will get something slightly different than the wealthy suburbs. Same facts, just rearranged to appeal to that demographic. Or sometimes we will withhold stories for one area of town, that we will provide full blown in another. It's bidniss as usual.

It's not always executed perfectly, either. sometimes the wrong version will run in the wrong area and we will get pounded with negative feedback from readers/viewers. Ever notice how local TV news stories are really short? like 20-30 seconds per topic? it's because it's a general broadcast to all audiences. The less we say, the less chance we have of offending one segment or another.

Oh so you spin the facts instead of reporting the facts. Got it.

[ChickOn2]

I know people voted against him cuz he was black, no doubt about it. So because people voted against him cuz of his color its okay to vote for him for the same reason?

Absolutely not. I told my dad that was a messed up reason to vote for anyone. If that was the case, I would vote for Jay Z. Black and charismatic, sure. Qualified for president, hell the fuck nawl.

But because Bush couldn't speak very well means he was a bumbling idiot? ?

Sorry to say but part of being an effective POTUS is being able to sound coherent and communicate a clear, concise thought that makes sense. Idiot, no... I'm sure his intelligence is average. Terrible speaker... mehhbee

And you will sit there and make fun of the way he talks (which is ok) but it's not ok for someone to make a comment about Obama being black?

I didn't say that either. He is, after all, black as the night that covers me. I don't care that he's halfsies... if he showed up on your doorstep to pick up your sister, he is surely black at that moment.

... And how do you know that's not how I talk..?

[chevysoldier]

I didn't say that either. He is, after all, black as the night that covers me. I don't care that he's halfsies... if he showed up on your doorstep to pick up your sister, he is surely black at that moment.

So now you assume I wouldn't want a black man to date my sister.

... And how do you know that's not how I talk..?

Because if it were the way you talked(typed) you would do it through out your entire post, not just when referring to GWB.

[ChickOn2]

Because if it were the way you talked(typed) you would do it through out your entire post, not just when referring to GWB.

oh lawdy. ok, darlin'. you got me. I ONLY do that when referring to GWB. that's the only time, ever.

[serpentracer]

Oh so you spin the facts instead of reporting the facts. Got it.

she's telling you straight from the horse's mouth they spin facts.

now if that just doesn't back up what I was saying about faux news nothing does. I wish it wasn't so easy for them to do but it is. that's also why so many people watch one station and stick with it. they hear what they want to hear from it.

fox is has an agenda. to ruin everything obama does or wants to do. and they play their music to the mases that listen to it. because they don't like obama. but the reason why they don't is because they are too ignorant/scared of him to listen to what he has to say. nothing more. they don't bother to do their own investigating into the subject either. they have a peconcieved notion of what the president and government's role is. and when they start trying to change either for good or bad, they freak out. even if it would help them someday.

I also like to hear from these very people their thoughts on Social Security. because lets face it, you know damn well they will cash those checks and live off the government too. but remember, they won't consider themselves a socialist.

Edited September 7, 2009 by serpentracer

[jporter12]

whoops... forgot to answer that part, sorry

everything you can think of. anything as harmless as a festival coverage to as important as election stories.

I don't get to do it myself much anymore, but I have a staff of reporters who know how to "write to order."

For example, sometimes we run the same story in different editions of the paper (nowadays... we run different editions based on the internet user's ZIP code or other demographics we can gather). The urban center of town will get something slightly different than the wealthy suburbs. Same facts, just rearranged to appeal to that demographic. Or sometimes we will withhold stories for one area of town, that we will provide full blown in another. It's bidniss as usual.

It's not always executed perfectly, either. sometimes the wrong version will run in the wrong area and we will get pounded with negative feedback from readers/viewers. Ever notice how local TV news stories are really short? like 20-30 seconds per topic? it's because it's a general broadcast to all audiences. The less we say, the less chance we have of offending one segment or another.

Interesting to say the least.....

I think you defined exactly what's wrong with the media today, they don't want to piss anybody off.

[alab32]

she's telling you straight from the horse's mouth they spin facts.

now if that just doesn't back up what I was saying about faux news nothing does. I wish it wasn't so easy for them to do but it is. that's also why so many people watch one station and stick with it. they hear what they want to hear from it.

fox is has an agenda. to ruin everything obama does or wants to do. and they play their music to the mases that listen to it. because they don't like obama. but the reason why they don't is because they are too ignorant/scared of him to listen to what he has to say. nothing more. they don't bother to do their own investigating into the subject either. they have a peconcieved notion of what the president and government's role is. and when they start trying to change either for good or bad, they freak out. even if it would help them someday.

I also like to hear from these very people their thoughts on Social Security. because lets face it, you know damn well they will cash those checks and live off the government too. but remember, they won't consider themselves a socialist.

However, Fox is the most popular news station, watched by ALL political parties.Their ratings are through the roof and they have more viewer per night than any other news chanel. Yes, im sure it is tweaked a little bit but I highly doubt it is quite how you describe it, or it wouldnt be on the top of the ratings the way it is.

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/01/13/cable-news-ratings-for-monday-january-12/10776

Every one of them, Fox on top until you go down towards the bottom, March 2008...

[chevysoldier]

she's telling you straight from the horse's mouth they spin facts.

now if that just doesn't back up what I was saying about faux news nothing does. I wish it wasn't so easy for them to do but it is. that's also why so many people watch one station and stick with it. they hear what they want to hear from it.

fox is has an agenda. to ruin everything obama does or wants to do. and they play their music to the mases that listen to it. because they don't like obama. but the reason why they don't is because they are too ignorant/scared of him to listen to what he has to say. nothing more. they don't bother to do their own investigating into the subject either. they have a peconcieved notion of what the president and government's role is. and when they start trying to change either for good or bad, they freak out. even if it would help them someday.

I also like to hear from these very people their thoughts on Social Security. because lets face it, you know damn well they will cash those checks and live off the government too. but remember, they won't consider themselves a socialist.

You hate Fox because they spin it for their agenda. But yet every other station does the same thing?

[ChickOn2]

Interesting to say the least.....

I think you defined exactly what's wrong with the media today, they don't want to piss anybody off.

Today.. try forever. Since I've been in the business, we have to write to our market. It's not to sell papers or get more viewers.. it's to sell advertising. It's not the news content that keeps the machine going... its the advertisers. It's part of my job to provide printed and visual content that our advertisers will want to buy time and space to be close to. The 50 cents you might shell out to read the sunday comics doesn't do a thing for our profit. But the $2.5 million a year that the big electronics store will pay to be in a display ad near the comics is a different story.

As such, if I piss off a reader/viewer/listener by publishing the 'wrong' story in the 'wrong' place, the advertisers get word, get pissed, and pull their ads. Which gets a sista' in a whole heap of trouble.

Test it, and see if I'm making it up. If any of y'all are lucky enough to live in a part of town that's mostly well-to-do homeowners, look closely at the advertising in the paper and on TV, also the junk mail (the media prints and distributes a lot of the junk mail, delivered by USPS). wealthier areas get ads for furniture galleries, Acura, Lexus, expensive senior assisted living, replacement windows/doors/etc., high end retailers. The 'hood' (lower income, rentals instead of homeowners, etc) gets ads for buy-here-pay-here lots or Chevy Cobalts for $199 a month (plus tons of fine print), check cashing places, income tax return services, and pizza and chicken coupons.

And my media outlet is small 'taters compared to something like General Electric (owns MSNBC), News Corp (owns Fox), Time Warner (owns CNN, Time, ESPN). Those 3 companies are direct competitors, so it makes sense for them to keep the division among their viewership going. It's highly profitable, and makes for great TV/reading.

With all of that said (and probably with Media Black Ops going to disappear my ass after this), for those of you who want to try to get virgin unspoiled stories usually straight from the reporter doing the research, look for material distributed by the Associated Press. It's what we in the biz call "the wires." The AP is a nonprofit organization that serves as a collection point for news stories from all over the world, which makes it harder (but not impossible) to write to order.

However, keep in mind that we media folks gather info from the wires and then package it. So if it's already printed in your local paper (or the paper's Web site), keep in mind that it might have been worked on already. Look more for the actual facts, instead of the order the facts are presented in... and also remember that the average AP story is 700-800 words long, but we often only have space for 200-300 words.

[ChickOn2]

You hate Fox because they spin it for their agenda. But yet every other station does the same thing?

You better believe they do, sugar britches... see above posting

[socaln8tv]

listen to beck most mornings just to hear what he has to say on the latest...

[jporter12]

Oh, I understand that articles have been written to their audience for a long time now. This is where technology has become a bit of a double edged sword.

I have to ask, is more information availability REALLY better? With all of the swine flu reports, people are scared to death. Should they be? Probably not a whole bunch more than the regular flu.

Basically, if everyone was to research the topics that they read about and get all sides and all views, the way things are reported wouldn't be such an issue. It's only because most people (myself not excluded!) are too lazy to do all the research on everything we read, so we take the spin and are possibly ill-informed.

[jporter12]

You better believe they do, sugar britches... see above posting

I think she likes you!

[jporter12]

listen to beck most mornings just to hear what he has to say on the latest...

The thing about Glenn Beck (I do listen to him) is that a lot of the stuff he says is written by his staff. I bet he goes over it before the show, too. I don't think he would say anything that he didn't agree with, but as with the President, he has his stuff written for him. His radio show is more really what he thinks than the TV show, as the radio show is where his heart is.

[ChickOn2]

Oh, I understand that articles have been written to their audience for a long time now. This is where technology has become a bit of a double edged sword.

You speak the truth, sir. And your point illustrates why the media is suffering so much now. (why do you think there are SOO many reality shows now? Or how so many 'no-names' are on TV shows now? Because they are super cheap to produce... fewer 'big names' to pay huge salaries to.... and media outlets are hemmoraging money right now).

Point being... name another industry where the consumer expects to get the core product for free. We cringe at the idea of paying 50 cents for a newspaper, and go online or flip on the TV for as much information as we can handle. Imagine your annoyance if you went on CNN.com to see what's up with the vote on healthcare reform and are asked for your credit card numbers. The industry is cannaballizing itself. we are beginning to reap what we have sown. I haven't been able to hire in 2 years, and I've had to lay people off several times.

I have to ask, is more information availability REALLY better? With all of the swine flu reports, people are scared to death. Should they be? Probably not a whole bunch more than the regular flu.

I'll tell ya, this really got bad after 9/11. Since then, it seems like 'overkill' has turned into business as usual. Why? (and this is going to sound terrible but its the truth) Because during the events of Sept. 11, 2001, news media outlets (local and national) saw HUGE HUGE unprecedented advertising profits. Bad news makes for high readership and viewership... which means the advertiser is happy to pay for the spots. 9/11 and follow up coverage was almost as good as the Super Bowl, from a marketing exposure standpoint. If you all think back, you remember they would be in the middle of a feed showing people leaping to their death... but they would STILL cut to commercial. Further ... (y'all shouldn't have got me started) They made promo and lead-in material including the most jarring, gruesome images they could and slapped on theme music and a slick title. (stop me if I get too media jargon-y)

To answer your question... just keep in mind that we learned from 9/11 thst whoever can deliver the bad news the MOST and the FASTEST and with the ickiest details will win the viewership and the biggest ad contracts. So just pretend you heard about H1N1 ONCE, instead of 50-leven times. If you really listen, you are getting only ONE set of information, multiple times.

I think she likes you!

I give him a hard time, but he knows I heart him!!

[jporter12]

Wow! I had no idea that anyone inside the media would ever reply in such a manner! Thank You!

It all makes sense now that you've spelled it out, and I really see what you're talking about!

[chevysoldier]

I give him a hard time, but he knows I heart him!!

Who?

[ChickOn2]

Wow! I had no idea that anyone inside the media would ever reply in such a manner! Thank You!

It all makes sense now that you've spelled it out, and I really see what you're talking about!

Well don't just take my word for it. If you're really curious, test it out one day. Time the length of a local broadcast story topic. See if it stays around 30-45 seconds. Maybe a minute tops, if the story is really 'hot.' I wouldn't start no conspiracy theory over it, it's just the way the business works.. Digesting Media output is just like deciding to get a stripper as a girlfriend... just be aware of what you're getting so you can know how to handle it

Who?

YOU, shugga britches!!