I really like the concept of the "Real News" program.I wish they had more content, but I understand they are a new program, just getting off their feet.Their guest Gore Vidal supplied a lot of interesting historical information (however pompous he may be), much of which I have never heard and may not totally agree with. I do believe they should have a guest with an opposing view to Vidals, or else they could be considered being just like the other news programs that we have been criticizing in class, one sided. I hope they are able to make it work, and will continue to watch.
I love the idea and mission of Real News, however, as was stated in the classroom I feel it is bound to fail. Without the proper funding they will fall victim to the well funded nationalized and privatized news sources. Peppered in between the inevitable labeling as a "liberal" news outlet that is only there to satisfy those already predisposed to distrust traditional news sources. Perhaps if I had more faith in people to provide the $10.00 a month they ask I would be a bit more optimistic in its continued survival.
A person cannot be reasoned out of a position that they have not reasoned themselves into. I doubt that despite what is widely known about the news networks of today, people will not take that as sufficient proof to create drive to exert some effort and view and heaven forbid, pay for therealnews.com. As much as I like Gore Vidal and his views, the man sounds like he is reading an earnings report to a room of tired, perhaps hung over, businessmen who can parse the information as needed. He is dry, uninvolved and terse. It's as if a robot is reading cue cards. I despise the way he comes off in his editorials. Please choose someone with some life!
I suppose the proof, whatever it is, will come with experience. Is news worth paying for? Will this outfit provide it? After all, some filters still apply here:
1) Someone does own it. 2) The do not have advertisers, but they do sell to a public, whom they have to please. 3) They still might get flak. 4) There must be ideologies involved.
On the other hand, the content has already increased considerably.
One function that a newspaper does that RN does not is local news -- unless you live in an occupied country somewhere. I don't get any CA is burning stuff, which has occupied the front page of even the NY Times for days.
I too truly like the idea and purpose of having a "Real News" program. It truly opens up stage for news programs that are not controlled by corporations. And it also offeres another side to an event that is not covered by day to day news stations. As CEO of daily news Paul Jay "because of the repitition of daily news..." This means that this is where people will get their first thought of an event and not from a normal video based T.V. news.
I Do not think that this will last very long as stated in the front page: "Non- profit". It is costly running a network of that size. They are obviously trying to be non mainstream media type but in some ways they also need to collaborate with them so they can get their program out. And they also need to figure out which issues the mainstream media is covering and then explore that issue more. I hope that this does become successful because they offer more sides to a story.
"What do you think about filters of production?"-BC
I do think that the some kind of fliter has to be produced. As mentioned about owners We do not personally know the owners or their intentions for the production of news. Who knows they clould also be collaborating with the larger media companies into presenting another idea they want us to know about. Their ideaology is to basically present ideas that the "normal" media do not present so that there is a form of filtration right there. They will also need some information or sources from the larger networks to branch of from them. So overall the purpose is good but in some ways it still leads back to the mainstream media.
5 comments:
I really like the concept of the "Real News" program.I wish they had more content, but I understand they are a new program, just getting off their feet.Their guest Gore Vidal supplied a lot of interesting historical information (however pompous he may be), much of which I have never heard and may not totally agree with. I do believe they should have a guest with an opposing view to Vidals, or else they could be considered being just like the other news programs that we have been criticizing in class, one sided. I hope they are able to make it work, and will continue to watch.
I love the idea and mission of Real News, however, as was stated in the classroom I feel it is bound to fail. Without the proper funding they will fall victim to the well funded nationalized and privatized news sources. Peppered in between the inevitable labeling as a "liberal" news outlet that is only there to satisfy those already predisposed to distrust traditional news sources. Perhaps if I had more faith in people to provide the $10.00 a month they ask I would be a bit more optimistic in its continued survival.
A person cannot be reasoned out of a position that they have not reasoned themselves into. I doubt that despite what is widely known about the news networks of today, people will not take that as sufficient proof to create drive to exert some effort and view and heaven forbid, pay for therealnews.com. As much as I like Gore Vidal and his views, the man sounds like he is reading an earnings report to a room of tired, perhaps hung over, businessmen who can parse the information as needed. He is dry, uninvolved and terse. It's as if a robot is reading cue cards. I despise the way he comes off in his editorials. Please choose someone with some life!
I suppose the proof, whatever it is, will come with experience. Is news worth paying for? Will this outfit provide it? After all, some filters still apply here:
1) Someone does own it.
2) The do not have advertisers, but they do sell to a public, whom they have to please.
3) They still might get flak.
4) There must be ideologies involved.
On the other hand, the content has already increased considerably.
One function that a newspaper does that RN does not is local news -- unless you live in an occupied country somewhere. I don't get any CA is burning stuff, which has occupied the front page of even the NY Times for days.
What do you think about filters of production?
I too truly like the idea and purpose of having a "Real News" program. It truly opens up stage for news programs that are not controlled by corporations. And it also offeres another side to an event that is not covered by day to day news stations. As CEO of daily news Paul Jay "because of the repitition of daily news..." This means that this is where people will get their first thought of an event and not from a normal video based T.V. news.
I Do not think that this will last very long as stated in the front page: "Non- profit". It is costly running a network of that size. They are obviously trying to be non mainstream media type but in some ways they also need to collaborate with them so they can get their program out. And they also need to figure out which issues the mainstream media is covering and then explore that issue more. I hope that this does become successful because they offer more sides to a story.
"What do you think about filters of production?"-BC
I do think that the some kind of fliter has to be produced. As mentioned about owners We do not personally know the owners or their intentions for the production of news. Who knows they clould also be collaborating with the larger media companies into presenting another idea they want us to know about. Their ideaology is to basically present ideas that the "normal" media do not present so that there is a form of filtration right there. They will also need some information or sources from the larger networks to branch of from them. So overall the purpose is good but in some ways it still leads back to the mainstream media.
Post a Comment