What is the best television news show/station you have watched? [Archive]

Rollo

4th March 2011, 01:08

SBS World News Australia draws on reports from the BBC, CNN, Sky, FOX, CBS, ABC, NBC as well as more than forty foreign language services. SBS also has the largest subtitling service in the world.
As far as news goes in Australia it has a far broader and wider outlook than all the commercial stations as well as the ABC.

It's still nothing to the on the ground reporters that the BBC World Service has. Thankfully, SBS also carries a transmission of the BBC World Service on DAB under the SBS6 slot.
Radio is usually a faster medium than television; you don't have to sit in one spot to listen to it. You can even listen to radio in the car or whilst walking.

anthonyvop

4th March 2011, 02:36

Seriously.

Bloomberg, CNBC, Fox Business, Fox, Telemundo.

On-line Mostly news gatherers like Drudge, Daily Caller, Business insider. And of course the WSJ & FT.

donKey jote

4th March 2011, 18:35

Seriously.

Daily Show, Colbert Report and 10 O'CLock Live :D

Mr. Mister

4th March 2011, 20:34

I get all my news from Twitter. :D

Honestly, I get most of it online from Bloomberg Businessweek, WSJ, FOX, and a few other sources (I'm admittedly conservative, despite being a young person in Massachusetts, so I suppose that's an influence). Not sure what news program I'd watch on TV; I've tried them all and none really stood out. FOX and FOX Business probably have better guests for my interests, but for nightly news, I just have no preference.

Jag_Warrior

5th March 2011, 23:45

Bloomberg News.

I've watched CNBC and Fox Business News over the years. IMO, neither comes close to the high standard that Bloomberg sets for the delivery of (data driven) financial news. Both CNBC and Fox Business rely too heavily on political opinion givers, who try to pass their fare off as "fundamentals". Politics can and does affect financial markets, equities and debt. But before hearing them chatter about politics, I want to know about the financial health of the underlying company FIRST! And neither CNBC nor Fox do much of anything in regard to (true) technical analysis. CNBC has gotten weak and Fox was pretty much a non-player on that topic from the word "go". When John Bollinger was around, that was certainly NOT the case. Before CNBC took it over, there was FNN (Financial News Network). But except for Bill Griffith and Sue Herrera, all of the old FNN people are now gone from CNBC. Ron Insana and John Bollinger were two of the best that FNN/CNBC had. But they've been replaced by more "entertaining" people, who seem to be there because of their faux wit, pretty faces and/or large breasts (Michelle Caruso-Cabrera). I do enjoy the news delivery of Maria Bartiromo and Becky Quick though. They're both bright, knowledgeable and rational. But CNBC has gone the Fox News/Business News route, by hiring too many "pretty faces" and chatter boxes, whose main purpose is to entertain viewers who don't know that much about the financial markets to begin with. CNBC does produce some pretty incredible special reports and documentaries though.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. Not much in the face dept., but not hired because of her brains either.

http://img3806.imagevenue.com/loc181/70174_Michelle_Caruso-Cabrera_legs_pic_122_181lo.jpg

P.S. The Nightly Business Report is also a fine program. But I don't get PBS right now, so I can't watch it any longer.

Zeakiwi

8th March 2011, 18:20

RT - has a few worthwhile docos at times. Some of their interviewers are particularly sharp. Gotta luv the hotties with the mixed Russian/ North American accented English.

Bob Riebe

8th March 2011, 19:21

Bob Riebe

8th March 2011, 19:23

I like WGN because their weather covers more area and gives one an idea of where and why weather fronts are moving. (Their maps go way into Canada)

Much better than the Twin Cities stations.

Rollo

8th March 2011, 19:36

I wonder how many news stations around the world, give a weather report for the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L6y9udeMVw

Bob Riebe

8th March 2011, 19:51

I wonder how many news stations around the world, give a weather report for the world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L6y9udeMVw
Question.
I cannot play this on Opera because the flash player needs updating. I can watch it on Internet Explorer or Firefox.
No matter what I do this one month old Toshiba will not update Opera. It used to work.

I even reloaded Opera.

DexDexter

8th March 2011, 21:17

BBC news by a mile.

Mark in Oshawa

12th March 2011, 23:52

jso1985

13th March 2011, 00:53

All national channels but the state-owned one are quite good here

CNN does the rest for international news

and Telesur AKA "Chavez all day round" gives a good comic relief

markabilly

13th March 2011, 03:43

The old Speed channel before Fox bought it and took it nascar, tow truck family, pinks, et al, bare nett auction, yadada

Jag_Warrior

13th March 2011, 19:27

The old Speed channel before Fox bought it and took it nascar, tow truck family, pinks, et al, bare nett auction, yadada

http://www.seeklogo.com/images/S/Speedvision-logo-46593986BD-seeklogo.com.gif

Loved Speedvision. Pretty much hate Speed Channel. If not for F1, GP2 and a few miscellaneous *racing* shows, I'd never turn it on. But I used to have a monitor set up in my home office that played Speedvision ALL THE TIME - the logo was actually burned into the screen. I still miss Legends of Motorsports and Victory by Design.

I think the rise of reality TV corresponds to the decrease in the intelligence of the American people. That's my theory and I'm stickin' with it.

slorydn1

13th March 2011, 19:47

I am going to be a homer, and take CTV News. I think when major events hit, I will hit FOX and CNN, and BBC if I get get it.

I don't think it is wise to take one side of things, and sometimes one network will be more accurate and informative than others.

ON this disaster, I surfed a lot, and most had the same footage.....all from NHK. NHK should get an award for chronicling the destruction of their own country and still getting the story out...

For the written word? I like National Post (Canada) Globe and Mail, WSJ, Detroit Free Press, Washington Times, The Guardian and Times of London.... and the Sun Newspaper ( Canadian Sun, not the UK one with the topless women!)chain's online services.

I have had the opprtunity to catch some CTV news that was re-broadcast on C-SPAN here during your elections a few years back and I was impressed. The reporters actually seemed knowledgeable about the issues being discussed and didnt seem like they were talking just to hear themselves talk like on our "news" stations.

gloomyDAY

13th March 2011, 23:23

I think the rise of reality TV corresponds to the decrease in the intelligence of the American people. That's my theory and I'm stickin' with it.I agree. Hell, that's probably why I don't watch much television. The only reason I turn on the tube is to watch a show called Globe Trekker, which most people from my generation wouldn't have the attention span to enjoy.

Today's "news" is sensationalist and deals mostly with confrontation, but not debate. My favorite reporter was Ted Koppel and he did a magnificent job of relaying the news without bias. You won't find that anywhere today. Networks are too busy trying to pick a fight, but not really stating any solutions.

Bob Riebe

13th March 2011, 23:53

I You won't find that anywhere today. Networks are too busy trying to pick a fight, but not really stating any solutions.They are a news organizations, it is definitely not their job to give solutions.

gloomyDAY

14th March 2011, 00:06

They are a news organizations, it is definitely not their job to give solutions.Why not? They can propose some kind of way to make things better instead of just criticizing every minute detail. For example, you posted in the other thread, about the fencing along the American-Mexican border, that the border to the south should be closed. Although you did propose an incredibly stupid idea, it was enough to start some dialogue and debate. There just needs to be more substance to news programs.

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 00:18

Why not? They can propose some kind of way to make things better instead of just criticizing every minute detail. For example, you posted in the other thread, about the fencing along the American-Mexican border, that the border to the south should be closed. Although you did propose an incredibly stupid idea, it was enough to start some dialogue and debate. There just needs to be more substance to news programs.

I, for once, agree 100 per cent with Bob. Offering solutions is simply not the role of news broadcasters. They should be impartial observers. How, then, can that ever be reconciled with giving solutions to problems?

Rollo

14th March 2011, 00:51

Why not? They can propose some kind of way to make things better instead of just criticizing every minute detail.

It depends on what their idea of making "things better" is doesn't it? Making things better might be wildly different depending on what your ideas happen to be.
Making decisions and the implementation of policy is the entire basis of politics.

The question is, should the media be involved in playing politics? Your response seems to suggest so.

Jag_Warrior

14th March 2011, 07:00

Since the topic is news stations, as well as shows, I think GloomyDay does make a good point. While it may not be up to a news presenter to offer a solution to a problem, I have no issue with a news station (Bloomberg, for example) offering shows where solutions are discussed and/or debated. Bloomberg periodically offers a program called the "Intelligence Squared Debate". It opens by polling the audience about where it stands on the topic at hand. Then two panels of topic experts debate the topic. At the end of the debate, the audience votes again. Whichever side changes the most minds wins. It's not so much that a definitive solution to a problem is found. But two sides of an issue are presented in an intelligent manner. Some time ago, I watched a show on Fox News where Bill O'Reilly "debated" Geraldo Rivera... I believe the topic was immigration. All they did was shout and scream at each other, with spit flying across the table as these two sideshow freaks went at each other. IMO, neither won the debate because they both came off like childish clowns. But (unfortunately), which news station gets higher ratings? Fox, by far! When CNBC was Financial News Network (or before NBC bought FNN), it was more like Bloomberg is now. But FNN was a financial failure. What I notice now is that CNBC has a lot more shouting & screaming while discussing stocks or the markets, and a lot less technical analysis. As I said earlier, Americans have shown that they would rather watch yelling, screaming and spit flying, rather than a truly intelligent debate presented in a calm, rational fashion.

I don't know what it's like anywhere else. But here, news channels, like all other TV channels, are increasingly being made for the slobbering masses/least common denominators among us. Wasn't it Marx who claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses? These days I would say that is no longer true, if it ever was. These days, the opiate of the masses is television.

And while we're on the topic of news, let me express my condolences and a wish for David Broder to rest in peace. He was a distinguished journalist for many, many years and died this past week.

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 09:38

It depends on what their idea of making "things better" is doesn't it? Making things better might be wildly different depending on what your ideas happen to be.

Exactly.

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 09:43

Since the topic is news stations, as well as shows, I think GloomyDay does make a good point. While it may not be up to a news presenter to offer a solution to a problem, I have no issue with a news station (Bloomberg, for example) offering shows where solutions are discussed and/or debated. Bloomberg periodically offers a program called the "Intelligence Squared Debate". It opens by polling the audience about where it stands on the topic at hand. Then two panels of topic experts debate the topic. At the end of the debate, the audience votes again. Whichever side changes the most minds wins. It's not so much that a definitive solution to a problem is found. But two sides of an issue are presented in an intelligent manner.

Ah, I have no objection at all to sensible discussion and debate programmes playing this role. I don't think the news broadcasters and their journalists should themselves be expected to offer solutions, though.

I don't know what it's like anywhere else. But here, news channels, like all other TV channels, are increasingly being made for the slobbering masses/least common denominators among us. Wasn't it Marx who claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses? These days I would say that is no longer true, if it ever was. These days, the opiate of the masses is television.

In spite of certain annoyances, such as the prevalence of pointless vox pops which add nothing of interest, and the very nature of rolling news coverage demanding a high degree of repetition, time-filling and unnecessary prediction, I would certainly place the BBC's efforts on something of a pedestal in this regard. It is a source of some satisfaction to me, at least, that the worst of what we see from across the Atlantic would be laughed off Britain's screens.

Mark

14th March 2011, 10:25

News does seem to have shifted over the years from that role of the impartial observer, just giving you the facts and letting you draw your own conclusions, to analysis and opinion pieces seemingly the most important thing. I guess when you have 24 hour rolling news and you are trying to report a major event with the complete absence of factual information, that's all you have left.

Just like at the weekend watching BBC News in the morning, they had footage of the explosion at the nuclear plant but literally knew nothing else - nobody did. But that didn't stop them going on and on!

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 10:53

Just like at the weekend watching BBC News in the morning, they had footage of the explosion at the nuclear plant but literally knew nothing else - nobody did. But that didn't stop them going on and on!

And yet people lap this up! I find it rather offensive, sometimes — these constant updates as to death tolls and so on. Sadly, there seems to be an appetite for this sort of thing, almost along the lines of 'We MUST know NOW how many people are dead'.

Bob Riebe

14th March 2011, 17:13

There is the news--and broadcasting it--and then there are the talking heads opinion shows, which exist strictly for entertainment.

They are not the same thing.

Any time a news reporters says "what if?" they have stopped broadcasting the news and entered into inserting their opinion.

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 17:32

Any time a news reporters says "what if?" they have stopped broadcasting the news and entered into inserting their opinion.

While I generally seem to agree with your sentiments on this subject, I can think of instances where a reporter, if sufficiently experienced, could ask 'What if...?' and do so legitimately. A good example might be musing on whether Gaddafi will stay in power. Looking at the different possibilities in a particular situation and their possible consequences is, to my mind, a valuable element of news broadcasting if done sensibly by a reporter with a proper grasp of what's going on. What follows does not have to be the reporter's opinion at all. I am interested to hear their perspectives beyond mere description of what has happened, because I would hope that they are more knowledgeable about the issue in hand than I am. This is why I greatly enjoy the BBC radio programmes, the best of which is From Our Own Correspondent, in which its reporters are able to talk more personally and at greater length about their current assignment without the restrictions imposed by standard news broadcasting.

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:16

In spite of certain annoyances, such as the prevalence of pointless vox pops which add nothing of interest, and the very nature of rolling news coverage demanding a high degree of repetition, time-filling and unnecessary prediction, I would certainly place the BBC's efforts on something of a pedestal in this regard. It is a source of some satisfaction to me, at least, that the worst of what we see from across the Atlantic would be laughed off Britain's screens.

Is BBC news 24 actually what we should aspire to? As someone who never experienced 24 hours news before I'd have to say that especially during events like this earthquake that the coverage is ****. Did I really need to be told that any aircraft that took off before the earthquake would land safely? What does that say about how much they respect their viewers? Their choices of experts on the nuclear issues appeared to be good, but when the person interviewing them doesn't really understand it all then perhaps they need to consider getting their science expert in?

Sure it's quite possibly better than the US channels, but should we really aspire to be mediocre when we could be great?

The way the BBC presents news has become formulaic, boring and predictable and I think Charlie was correct to poke fun at it.

aHun58mz3vI

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 22:23

Is BBC news 24 actually what we should aspire to? As someone who never experienced 24 hours news before I'd have to say that especially during events like this earthquake that the coverage is ****. Did I really need to be told that any aircraft that took off before the earthquake would land safely? What does that say about how much they respect their viewers? Their choices of experts on the nuclear issues appeared to be good, but when the person interviewing them doesn't really understand it all then perhaps they need to consider getting their science expert in?

Sure it's quite possibly better than the US channels, but should we really aspire to be mediocre when we could be great?

The way the BBC presents news has become formulaic, boring and predictable and I think Charlie was correct to poke fun at it.

aHun58mz3vI

A low pedestal, I grant you! Still the best of a bad bunch, mind you. You are right about the presenters. Still, though, the quality of much of the on-the-spot journalism is very high. And the World Service would always be my medium of choice if I wanted to hear regular coverage of a particular world event.

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:32

A low pedestal, I grant you! Still the best of a bad bunch, mind you. You are right about the presenters. Still, though, the quality of much of the on-the-spot journalism is very high. And the World Service would always be my medium of choice if I wanted to hear regular coverage of a particular world event.

Yes some of the on the spot journalism is fantastic, John Simpson is someone I'd never really heard about before I moved here but who I find utterly trustworthy and not terminally vapid like some of the other presenters/reporters.

One example of someone whose presence on the BBC mystifies me is Kate Russell who appears on the rather crapulent Technology/Apple Love show "Click!" she's just pointeless and her job could be done by a speach synthesiser and we'd be none the poorer. There are others but I can't really think about them at the moment.

Then there are the good commentators like Aaron Heslehurst who manages to have a personality and report the economics news in an attractive and informative manner and when there is a need to dumb things down for people like myself who never even did economics at school he's able to do it without being patronising.

cAnyOI3lIuw

GridGirl

14th March 2011, 22:33

I have to say I got a tad annoyed with BBC News last week. At around 11am I watched an interview with some women who happens to be getting married in Edinburgh on the same day as Zara Phillips. The reporter asked the woman what her thoughts were about getting married on the same day in the same city as Zara to which the women said she really didn't care because she would be enjoying her own wedding. It was such a non-news story and quite frankly rubbish interview which I could accept on New 24 at a random time in the day but boy did it annoy me when I saw it again on the 10 O'clock news later that night.

I also seem to be getting increasingly peeved when I see reports on BBC breakfast that I've seen two or three days previously on local news. :s

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:34

I also seem to be getting increasingly peeved when I see reports on BBC breakfast that I've seen two or three days previously on local news. :s

Very annoying.....

Bob Riebe

14th March 2011, 22:35

While I generally seem to agree with your sentiments on this subject, I can think of instances where a reporter, if sufficiently experienced, could ask 'What if...?' and do so legitimately. A good example might be musing on whether Gaddafi will stay in power. Looking at the different possibilities in a particular situation and their possible consequences is, to my mind, a valuable element of news broadcasting if done sensibly by a reporter with a proper grasp of what's going on. What follows does not have to be the reporter's opinion at all. I am interested to hear their perspectives beyond mere description of what has happened, because I would hope that they are more knowledgeable about the issue in hand than I am. This is why I greatly enjoy the BBC radio programmes, the best of which is From Our Own Correspondent, in which its reporters are able to talk more personally and at greater length about their current assignment without the restrictions imposed by standard news broadcasting.
There is nothing wrong with opinion shows by news media, it does inform, but it is not the news, it is opinion.

IF a reporter asks someone-- what if x, what it y, or what do you think, he will be simply getting opinion- with few exceptions- with an obvious exception of asking-- if the damn fails ,what is the plan-- or something similar.

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:42

IF a reporter asks someone

It's especially annoying when it's a member of the public or a celebrity.

One of the worst bits of TV ever.....
H-HBdxx49-I

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 22:42

I have to say I got a tad annoyed with BBC News last week. At around 11am I watched an interview with some women who happens to be getting married in Edinburgh on the same day as Zara Phillips. The reporter asked the woman what her thoughts were about getting married on the same day in the same city as Zara to which the women said she really didn't care because she would be enjoying her own wedding. It was such a non-news story and quite frankly rubbish interview which I could accept on New 24 at a random time in the day but boy did it annoy me when I saw it again on the 10 O'clock news later that night.

And to think we've (actually, you've — I'm not in the UK so can't see it) got over a month of wedding-related crap still to go. The coverage of the wedding will represent 'news' at its unenquiring worst, turning the clock back over 40 years to the time when every broadcaster was utterly deferential to everybody in authority.

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 22:44

If we're swapping links, this was a heart-warming moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwf6Jtk1awc

BDunnell

14th March 2011, 22:46

Yes some of the on the spot journalism is fantastic, John Simpson is someone I'd never really heard about before I moved here but who I find utterly trustworthy and not terminally vapid like some of the other presenters/reporters.

And a very amusing man too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlvkwhN50N4

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:50

If we're swapping links, this was a heart-warming moment...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nwf6Jtk1awc

It takes a special kind of moron to laugh at people who are quite correctly pointing out how completely pointless they are.

Daniel

14th March 2011, 22:59

ELJh2bTK1ew

How that guy kept his cool I don't know.......

Mark

15th March 2011, 08:01

Just try watching local news :( . OK, sometimes it's reasonable when they have a real story, such as the Raoul Moat saga. But most of the time it only consists of two types of story.
* Local person is involved or knows someone who is involved in an event on the national news. e.g. Last week it was person who has family somewhere in Japan - they didn't really know where in Japan or if it was by the sea- great.
* Local child is very ill and needs a life saving operation, the locals are 'rallying round' to support the stricken child.
And that's it :mark:

BDunnell

15th March 2011, 09:04