The networks over play everything they can in the name of making moneyPlease agree if the networks are over playing this
Apart from a few outlets clearly trying to create a narrative, the media networks are mostly just reporting the event and the political response to the event. That's their job.The networks over play everything they can in the name of making money
You would think they'd do their job, but they only report on the things that they want to be covered. If they were really doing their job, they'd be reporting all things Americans should be aware of. And that simply isn't happening (never has).Apart from a few outlets clearly trying to create a narrative, the media networks are mostly just reporting the event and the political response to the event. That's their job.
Maybe, but if you think that significant subjects are not being covered then I'd first have to question your choice of news outlets. I'm not seeing that problem at all.You would think they'd do their job, but they only report on the things that they want to be covered. If they were really doing their job, they'd be reporting all things Americans should be aware of. And that simply isn't happening (never has).
As I often tell my wife, news is for entertainment purposes only. One should never assume they are covering the entire story or all stories that matter.Maybe, but if you think that significant subjects are not being covered then I'd first have to question your choice of news outlets. I'm not seeing that problem at all.
Well you answered my question, though possibly unintentionally. If you are restricting your news sources to news entertainment outlets then your observation is definitely spot on. But actual news outlets make money by reporting real news. Doing that well is their primary source of success (revenue from views/hits etc.). Competition between them keeps them honest, just like in any other business. And from a reader perspective, comparison of their reporting provides a good assessment of their reliability.As I often tell my wife, news is for entertainment purposes only. One should never assume they are covering the entire story or all stories that matter.
Also, they are companies that are in business to make money (makes sense). They aren't going to report on anything that is detrimental to their business.
I'm not sure what you mean by a news entertainment outlet. I guess you mean like People Magazine?Well you answered my question, though possibly unintentionally. If you are restricting your news sources to news entertainment outlets then your observation is definitely spot on.
IMHO, actual news is only a tool to control people. I don't recommend anyone only watch the news (and especially not from only one source) to understand what's going on in the world. And, sadly, this is what the average person does.But actual news outlets make money by reporting real news. Doing that well is their primary source of success (revenue from views/hits etc.). Competition between them keeps them honest, just like in any other business.
No - I mean whatever you are watching that you classify as news for entertainment purposes.I'm not sure what you mean by a news entertainment outlet. I guess you mean like People Magazine?
Again, you appear to be referring to a remarkably limited set of outlets.I only pay attention to mainstream news outlets -- and enjoy a variety as it's common knowledge they are controlled by political parties.
So which is it? Your original claim that news reporting is for entertainment only, and does not report real news:"Paying attention to only one news outlet doesn't really give you a good picture of news being covered.
IMHO, actual news is only a tool to control people. I don't recommend anyone only watch the news (and especially not from only one source) to understand what's going on in the world. And, sadly, this is what the average person does.
I meant I treat it as entertainment only. I don't believe any news source is trying to report fake news. However, news sources in general are biased and don't share all of the most important stories. They tend to share stories that make them money or cause them not to lose money. Again, they are businesses -- they aren't here to do the work of the people at their own expense.So which is it? Your original claim that news reporting is for entertainment only, and does not report real news
Yes, it is indeed a very limited set as my time is limited. Those mainstream news outlets include the following:Again, you appear to be referring to a remarkably limited set of outlets.
That's not a bad selection, although it is very limited in scope - just large US news corporations. But several of them do pretty good investigative journalism. So can you point to any significant news that has not been pretty well covered by that set?Yes, it is indeed a very limited set as my time is limited. Those mainstream news outlets include the following:
FWIW, I'm sharing my opinions here. I can appreciate that your opinions might not match mine (and I would never expect that).
- ABC News
- CBS News
- CNN
- Fox News
- MSNBC
- NBC News
- The New York Times
- USA Today
- The Wall Street Journal
- The Washington Post
Certainly. But, that would send you down a huge rabbit hole and you'd no doubt have many more great questions. And I don't want to take this thread off topic. Also, it would get very political and we'd then be violating forum rules.can you point to any significant news that has not been pretty well covered by that set?
Well then that was a rather futile discussion.Certainly. But, that would send you down a huge rabbit hole and you'd no doubt have many more great questions. And I don't want to take this thread off topic. Also, it would get very political and we'd then be violating forum rules.
Agreed. I didn't intend to head down that road. My only point was nearly all (or possibly all?) networks exist only to make money. They report stories (and sometimes reshare too many times) that will maximize their profits.Well then that was a rather futile discussion.
Not at all. I think the majority of important stories are always shared by at least one mainstream news source.when your news sources span the entire range from right to left, doesn't it make you question why the (presumably mostly political) news that you apparently feel you are missing isn't reported anywhere on the spectrum?
To some extent. Where we apparently disagree is their strategy to make money. The sources that I support with subscriptions are those that appear to value in-depth and impartial reporting, rather than those that clearly either have an agenda or have concluded that they care more about entertaining their viewers/readers delusions than embracing reality.Agreed. I didn't intend to head down that road. My only point was nearly all (or possibly all?) networks exist only to make money. They report stories (and sometimes reshare too many times) that will maximize their profits.
Then it sounds like the news media is doing its job just fine, after all.Not at all. I think the majority of important stories are always shared by at least one mainstream news source.
Geostationary satellites are much too far away (~22,000 miles) to get good images. Surveillance satellites start at around 100 miles. A balloon at 12 miles has a resolution advantage if they are willing to put their best cameras on it, but that seems a bit unlikely without a robust self-destruct system since there is a high probability of payload capture, as just happened.I have been searching for a good current analysis of the balloon's likely technical surveillance capabilities but have not yet found one. About all I have learned is that satellite imaging remains the gold standard and there are two kinds, low altitude and high altitude geosynchronous. Low altitude may yield higher quality imagery but photo must be snapped at precise moment because satellite is moving at 18,000 mph. High altitude satellite cameras are capable of "persistent stare," because they are rotating at same speed as earth so they can remain on target indefinitley. But the camera is much farther away and the images may therefore be lower quality. An image take at 60,000 feet + balloon's slow moving "persistent stare," unhindered by weather, could be very beneficial. The fact that it has propellers, can be controlled and flew over missile silos, tells me it was espionage.