Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

OldBaldy1701E

(9,132 posts)
28. The late seventies to early eighties.
Fri Sep 26, 2025, 08:16 AM
Friday

The stations were being taken over by those who only saw numbers. So, they decreed that their news programs, which they used to do solely because the FCC 'suggested' they had to do a certain amount of 'public programming', meaning news, or other community assistance. Then, the corporations that were buying up these stations and conglomerates decided that their news shows must have ratings like any other television show. SO, they thumbed their noses at the usual practice and made their news programs vie for ratings like any other show.

Now, how is a news program going to compete with Hollywood?

By being as 'Hollywood' as they could be. Of course, this has a detrimental effect on non-bias as well as presentation, because someone standing and dryly talking to the camera is not as exciting as a reporter charging up and sticking a mic into someone's face whether they like it or not and asking questions that no sensible person would ask at that time.

But, I don't blame the news programs, really. They fell into the new 'format' quickly enough, but they were also fighting for survival. However, the practice of letting the news not be dictated by ratings was removed and that led to the mess that we call 'the news' today.

The internet came along after than, but that is another story, and another reason why the news is not what it used to be.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Who was it who signed the Telecommunications Act? gab13by13 Thursday #1
Post removed Post removed Thursday #3
Billy boy John Coktosten Thursday #4
Bravo, but this begs a very important question for Senator Murphy: Fiendish Thingy Thursday #2
monopolies tfury653 Thursday #5
and the result was..... lastlib Thursday #13
You can start by returning to exempting the news programs from having to survive by ratings. OldBaldy1701E Thursday #6
Excellent point. calimary Thursday #7
I don't know it ever worked that way. When did that change? Takket Thursday #9
The late seventies to early eighties. OldBaldy1701E Friday #28
When have news shows ever relied on ratings to survive? SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #11
Well, first we have to find a defiinition of "news shows" progressoid Thursday #17
Ah got it, thanks SickOfTheOnePct Thursday #19
They rely on advertising to survive Captain Zero Friday #26
They don't, really. OldBaldy1701E Friday #29
Sure, a "public service" managed by that great "public servant".... reACTIONary Thursday #15
Yup. (n/t) OldBaldy1701E Friday #30
Will never kacekwl Thursday #8
Yes. But let's generalize the advice. Bluetus Thursday #10
break up maliaSmith Thursday #12
It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else. Theodore Roosevelt Ping Tung Thursday #14
I doubt many MAGAs even know who he is. progressoid Thursday #18
First st3p is expanding the USSC to 13 Warpy Thursday #16
THIS!!! calimary Thursday #24
AND BIG ,MEDIA WILL DESTROY DEMS JUST AS THEY DID DEAN. pansypoo53219 Thursday #20
I think Chris Murphy is one of the best communicators the Dem party has. yellow dahlia Thursday #21
The breakup of the original "Ma Bell", American Telephone & Telegraph, into the Baby Bells dobleremolque Thursday #22
Laughable Captain Obvious .... Too little way too late. I remember the race for media outlets live love laugh Thursday #23
Only problem is Diraven Friday #25
The Telecommunications Act killed progressive/liberal/non-conservative radio. no_hypocrisy Friday #27
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yes Senator Murphy! Yes! ...»Reply #28