4 ms·

> But we'd be way better off if "the news" was something you could watch from 7 PM - 8 PM if you were interested, or something you could read in a printed newsp

> But we'd be way better off if "the news" was something you could watch from 7 PM - 8 PM if you were interested, or something you could read in a printed newspaper if you were really interested, and otherwise the general public could ignore it. This is how the news was for me as a 90s kid who only had over the air channels for TV. 6:00-6:30PM was local news, 6:30-7:00PM was World News Tonight with Peter Jennings. Outside of that folks weren't particularly concerned with what was happening beyond their immediate bubble.

taude 3y ago
Even in the early 90s news started shifting towards our modern incarnation. CNN was considered hard news in the 80s, but that changed around the time of the Persian Gulf war and Wolf Blitzer becoming the Scud-Stud, and all the other shows like Cross-Fire becoming news-er-tainment (or whatever the proper industry term is), etc...
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > CNN was considered hard news in the 80s I blame CNN for much of the state of news today. TV news has always been poor, but before CNN proved otherwise, news was not something that was considered a profit-maker. Once CNN showed it can make money, then the profit maximalization began in earnest, and with that came the descent into news-as-entertainment. That started well before the gulf war.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    Oh, that goes way back before CNN and cable, or even TV. As an aside, 99% invisible had a pretty good podcast on how radio (which delivers news to more Americans -and is trusted more- than TV) content has changed over the years. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-divided-dial/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-divided-dial/ The change has been systemic, and that change shaped CNN more than the other way around.
  - xattt 3y ago
    An oft-forgotten movie is the Network (1976) that predicts the rise of activist news hosts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)
whalesalad 3y ago
This is still true today, though. I am generally sick of the news too but sometimes it is nice to watch local news (WDIV channel 4 here in Detroit) from 6 to 6:30 to hear about stuff going on around town, and then NBC nightly news from 6:30 to 7 to get some more national info.
- jwells89 3y ago
  That's good to hear. I haven't watched cable or OTA TV for around 15 years at this point so I don't have a good idea of what it's like these days, except for that time ~5 years ago when I tried plugging in an antenna to see what I could pick up but immediately lost interest after being reminded how much time ads take up on OTA TV channels.
  - whalesalad 3y ago
    The ads are undoubtedly the worst part. During local news it’s terrible/obnoxious furniture companies and national news is 100% drug commercials.
    - gnarlynarwhal42 3y ago
      frankly, the ads are the least bad part. at least ads are honest in their intention
    - jvm___ 3y ago
      "...in rare cases, may cause gangrene of the perineum."
      - whalesalad 3y ago
        love that the disclaimer has to explain where the perineum is on that one lol
    - claytongulick 3y ago
      Which has an effect on content. Which has an effect on the political process.
ghaff 3y ago
Yep. For a decent chunk of my early adulthood, barring really major events, my news consumption was ABC World News Tonight and maybe This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday if I was around--and Time Magazine delivered weekly to my mailbox. And that was pretty much it.
- vidanay 3y ago
  And Frontline for long form.
  - cbsmith 3y ago
    Not newspapers?
    - vidanay 3y ago
      Do you consider newspapers as long form? (I certainly never have.)
      - ghaff 3y ago
        While there are/were Sunday magazines, I'd generally consider magazines more broadly for deep dives into particular aspects of culture, politics, and hobbies.
        cbsmith 3y ago
        It depends on the magazine (and the newspaper), but I'd generally agree with that perspective.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        I was more reflecting on newspapers not being mentioned at all as a news source. ABC World News Tonight, This Week, and Frontline are all TV sources, and Time Magazine is a pretty different beast. Back in the day newspapers and radio were pretty significant news sources for people (and radio still is). I don't know if I'd call newspapers long form, as they certainly have lots of short articles, but I'd say they regularly have "longer form" than Frontline.
psunavy03 3y ago
And realistically, as a fellow 80s and 90s kid . . . what benefit is there to this always-on 24 hour news extravaganza? There are not enough relevant things going on in the world to merit a 24-hour news cycle, so the media has to make things up to fill the gaps. But once they make things up, they're pathologically incapable of distinguishing their own made-up crap from actual relevant news items. So we spend the day glued to our phones flooded in crap.
- JohnClark1337 3y ago
  [dead]

taude 3y ago

Even in the early 90s news started shifting towards our modern incarnation. CNN was considered hard news in the 80s, but that changed around the time of the Persian Gulf war and Wolf Blitzer becoming the Scud-Stud, and all the other shows like Cross-Fire becoming news-er-tainment (or whatever the proper industry term is), etc...

JohnFen 3y ago
> CNN was considered hard news in the 80s I blame CNN for much of the state of news today. TV news has always been poor, but before CNN proved otherwise, news was not something that was considered a profit-maker. Once CNN showed it can make money, then the profit maximalization began in earnest, and with that came the descent into news-as-entertainment. That started well before the gulf war.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  Oh, that goes way back before CNN and cable, or even TV. As an aside, 99% invisible had a pretty good podcast on how radio (which delivers news to more Americans -and is trusted more- than TV) content has changed over the years. https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-divided-dial/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/the-divided-dial/ The change has been systemic, and that change shaped CNN more than the other way around.
- xattt 3y ago
  An oft-forgotten movie is the Network (1976) that predicts the rise of activist news hosts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_(1976_film)

whalesalad 3y ago

This is still true today, though. I am generally sick of the news too but sometimes it is nice to watch local news (WDIV channel 4 here in Detroit) from 6 to 6:30 to hear about stuff going on around town, and then NBC nightly news from 6:30 to 7 to get some more national info.

jwells89 3y ago
That's good to hear. I haven't watched cable or OTA TV for around 15 years at this point so I don't have a good idea of what it's like these days, except for that time ~5 years ago when I tried plugging in an antenna to see what I could pick up but immediately lost interest after being reminded how much time ads take up on OTA TV channels.
- whalesalad 3y ago
  The ads are undoubtedly the worst part. During local news it’s terrible/obnoxious furniture companies and national news is 100% drug commercials.
  - gnarlynarwhal42 3y ago
    frankly, the ads are the least bad part. at least ads are honest in their intention
  - jvm___ 3y ago
    "...in rare cases, may cause gangrene of the perineum."
    - whalesalad 3y ago
      love that the disclaimer has to explain where the perineum is on that one lol
  - claytongulick 3y ago
    Which has an effect on content. Which has an effect on the political process.

ghaff 3y ago

Yep. For a decent chunk of my early adulthood, barring really major events, my news consumption was ABC World News Tonight and maybe This Week with David Brinkley on Sunday if I was around--and Time Magazine delivered weekly to my mailbox. And that was pretty much it.

vidanay 3y ago
And Frontline for long form.
- cbsmith 3y ago
  Not newspapers?
  - vidanay 3y ago
    Do you consider newspapers as long form? (I certainly never have.)
    - ghaff 3y ago
      While there are/were Sunday magazines, I'd generally consider magazines more broadly for deep dives into particular aspects of culture, politics, and hobbies.
      - cbsmith 3y ago
        It depends on the magazine (and the newspaper), but I'd generally agree with that perspective.
    - cbsmith 3y ago
      I was more reflecting on newspapers not being mentioned at all as a news source. ABC World News Tonight, This Week, and Frontline are all TV sources, and Time Magazine is a pretty different beast. Back in the day newspapers and radio were pretty significant news sources for people (and radio still is). I don't know if I'd call newspapers long form, as they certainly have lots of short articles, but I'd say they regularly have "longer form" than Frontline.

psunavy03 3y ago

And realistically, as a fellow 80s and 90s kid . . . what benefit is there to this always-on 24 hour news extravaganza? There are not enough relevant things going on in the world to merit a 24-hour news cycle, so the media has to make things up to fill the gaps. But once they make things up, they're pathologically incapable of distinguishing their own made-up crap from actual relevant news items. So we spend the day glued to our phones flooded in crap.

JohnClark1337 3y ago
[dead]