What if CNN existed in the 1960s? What effect would this have on civil rights, the anti-war movement, the hippies, etc.?
It's amazing how the Great Depression and WWII erased people's memory of the roaring 20s. How many people remember that the KKK was anti-Catholic?And I also think that the early 90s get a bad rap in terms of being known as the time when "news and entertainment became indistinguishable." Leopold and Loeb were even less important than O.J. Simpson, but, adjusting for the absence of television, their trial in the 1920s attracted just as much hoopla.
It's amazing how the Great Depression and WWII erased people's memory of the roaring 20s. How many people remember that the KKK was anti-Catholic?
The international superstars would be the topics of headline after headline. Members from the Chicago Cubs would visit them in jail, WGN attempted to broadcast the final verdict, and Orson Welles starred in a movie based off of their murder.
Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.. . . one thing that strikes me about CNN is just how milquetoast it really is, in terms of its impact on politics and social issues. . .
Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.
Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.
God, I wish it was still like that, but you know without the sexism, racism, and homophobia, among other things.Also, journalism was still very respected and obviously you can't have 24/7 news without 90% of it being pure rat shit. Also, life was different. People watched TV after dinner. Kids watched on Saturday mornings or after school. Housewifes during the day. But there would be times when the public wouldn't be watching tv.
CNN, at least as of the past few years, has been anything but nonpartisan.Disagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.
Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.
>CNNDisagree. As much as I might like to see CNN get in the ditch and fight with Fox, I think CNN tries to differentiate by being nonpartisan.
Generally, I'm saying CNN tries to be right down the middle.
I think it's mainly just that people/I hate 24-hour news as a concept. That's why they have to cover so much meaningless bullshit, because when you have to cover a full 24-hours, of course you're gonna start reporting pointless shit just to fill time.For clarification, in this scenario, is CNN identical to OTL, ie. owned by Ted Turner(or someone of similar ideological positioning), and is it headquartered in Atlanta? Or does it just have to be a 24 hr news network?
Assuming it's more or less the same network as OTL, one thing that strikes me about CNN is just how milquetoast it really is, in terms of its impact on politics and social issues. People say(rightly or wrongly) that Cronkite turned the public against the Vietnam War, Woodward and Bernstein brought down a president(somewhat harder evidence for this one), and FOX epitomized the rise of the reactionary right. I really can't think of any similar items for which CNN can be credited or blamed.
For the most part, the indictment against CNN just seems to be some nebulous charge of "dumbing down the news", because they break everything down into soundbites, but no solid examples are usually cited to back up this charge. The closest it comes to anything tangible is the Gulf War, which they supposedly made into a video game(or something), but even then, it's not usually claimed that they had an actual impact on what people thought about the conflict, in terms of being for or against it.
So, a 1960s CNN probably just means more self-styled high-brows complaining that the public is being spoonfed journalistic pablum, but with Vietnam, urban riots, student protests, and various assassinations being cited as the examples, instead of the Gulf War, Rodney King, and OJ.
Would most Americans be willing to pay for cable in the 1960s? ABC, CBS, and NBC were free. It wasn't until the 80s/90s when people were willing to spend more then they earned on credit.
Also, journalism was still very respected and obviously you can't have 24/7 news without 90% of it being pure rat shit. Also, life was different. People watched TV after dinner. Kids watched on Saturday mornings or after school. Housewifes during the day. But there would be times when the public wouldn't be watching tv
More likely is Howard Hughes doing his planned 4th network.
I can't really think of an issue either. Not one they've busted wide open. Or really pursued and stayed ahead of the curve as regards other news organizations.Well, I wasn't really commenting on their ideology(which I agree, tends to be middle-of-the-road), but on the impact they've had on public opinion, which I think has been relatively slight. I can't really think of an issue where CNN's reporting or commentary has been cited as pivotal to public perception.
24-hour news fearmongere a lot. Lots of crime and kidnapping.I think it's mainly just that people/I hate 24-hour news as a concept. That's why they have to cover so much meaningless bullshit, because when you have to cover a full 24-hours, of course you're gonna start reporting pointless shit just to fill time.
Well, as said earlier, that wa san issue in the 20s too. My main issue is still with having to cover bullshit in order to fill time due to the nature of the format.24-hour news fearmongere a lot. Lots of crime and kidnapping.
Okay, I will swing at this pitch.CNN, at least as of the past few years, has been anything but nonpartisan.