Who's your most trusted news anchor?

[Trophy]

If you had to choose only one news anchor for a vital news information, who would you pick?

This poll is limited to current major news sources, but you can write-in your own by checking "other" and then posting a name.

I realize that most anchors simply "read" news, but I'm sure most of you have seen their own reporting and discussions w/o scripts to evaluate their work.

[ 01-14-2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Trophy ]

[Dancin' Bear]

Whoever is on Fox News when I turn on the TV.

[Silver Hilton]

I neither trust nor distrust anchors - they do nothing other than read what is put in front of them. Saying you like one or the other is really a vote on best hair. Even on the unscripted stuff, they aren't driving the story selection.

I watch four different news channels over the course of the day, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, NBC. I've watched Fox, but haven't noticed enough difference in their coverage to want to change, I guess. I can't say that I think there is a lot of difference one way or the other between them. They tend to report the same stories, they tend to miss the same stories. I don't accept any of them uncritically.

[ 01-14-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[Kilgore]

Although Ted Koppel is not an "official" anchor, I think he has the sharpest mind and credibility. The reason he's not anchoring a major network/cable news is his lack of broad charisma, and more importantly, he probably rather do more hard-hitting news such as the Nightline or TownHall meeting discussions.

Jim Lehrer is clearly the best of the mentioned, but he seems to be losing some energy and enthusiasm as time goes on. His ex-co-anchor, Robert MacNeil, was also very intelligent and was a dispassionately credible journalist.

[ 01-14-2003, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Kilgore ]

[GutshotApe]

Harry Shearer

[1pump]

I second Silver Hilton's response.

[ultralight]

Silver Hilton,

I could not disagree more with your opinion. News anchors are more than just mere 'readers', but they're professional journalists who frequently have to formulate their own questions during interviews and inject their knowledge and experience during reporting. Much of that requires a tremendous amount of knowledge, understanding and skills, which come through in their speech and body language.

I know some journalists, even few anchors, show obvious political bias which are evident in their choice of words and the shape of their questions. So, one who says that all anchors are the same, does not understand.

UL,
They are no more "journalists" than one of the sheep in my pasture. Everything they say and do is scripted.

[WaterDog]

The anchors mentioned in the poll are nothing more than talking heads.

I vote for one of Keta's sheep. :grin:

[Sea Nymph]

i'm with dancin' bear. fox seems to be the least bias - both ways.

[lost_sailor]

Bob Edwards, NPR (Morning Edition)

LS,
I don't want to admit to agreeing with you but he's a good one.

[El Shaddai]

Brit Hume...Fox News Channel....As for differences, the "flavor" and "context" in which a story is reported varies wildly....just watch Dan Rather and then turn to Brit Hume......you may come away with a different impression (specifically on political and social stories).

Sadly, many papers are even worse sources of news coverage. Most are very selective of what they report and why......i.e. the NY Times is one big editorial for the left.....

For fair and balanced coverage, you have Fox or you must look to some really good sources via the internet....

[Silver Hilton]

Ultralight,

I don't disagree that Wolf Blitzer or Tom Brokaw, for example, are knowledgable, dedicated, etc. My point is that they and other reporters and anchors don't control the agenda or the program of the news.

They do a good job in the interviews. Do they select the people to be interviewed? Do they select the stories? Are they allowed to present dissenting views? Has Noam Chomsky ever been interviewed on network TV, for example?

They do a good job in covering the stories that they are given, within the political correctness limits of the various stations. But the stations' management impose controls and directions. They are reluctant to offend major advertisers. They have direct financial relationships that affect their coverage.

For example, did you know that networks get paid by the US Office of National Drug Control Policy when an anti drug message or story is broadcast as part of a news show or TV program, and that they lose part of the credit if they broadcast anything that is interpreted by the ODNCP as anti war on drugs? Is it possible that that influences story selection? And do you think the anchors or reporters have a say in that decision? Is it possible that this business relationship distorts the information that is presented to us?

Further, presidential administrations are well known (and this covers past and present administrations) to provide better access to the networks that provide 'friendly coverage'. If the coverage is too aggressive, your network doesn't get the interviews, and you don't get the viewers.

I'm not slamming the anchors for lack of honesty, just observing that they don't control the complete picture. That warrants a healthy amount of critical analysis as we look at the news. This doesn't mean that we are being lied to per se, just that we sometimes get carefully selected subsets of the facts.

[Silver Hilton]

Nope, Ah'm one a them libuhruls. With a capital L. As in John Stuart Mill.

[ 01-15-2003, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[ultralight]

Silver Hilton,

Of course, the news anchors don't control the agenda or the program of the news. It’s because those are not their jobs. The president doesn't make the laws or decide what the interest rate will be, because those are not under his control. News anchors are not news directors or news editors, for sure. To confuse the news anchors as people who have total control of every situation is being unrealistic and naive. As we should know, a person working in a large professional organization invariably has to work WITH the help and guidance of other people, for the good of the organization's purpose and goals. This often is a good thing, else we'll have a bunch of loose lips running around reporting dubious and unsubstantiated stories too often.

However, this does not mean that they are just mindless readers. Much of what we see on nightly news is, of course, highly scripted reporting, but to suggest that they are mere pretty faces reading controlled scripts is not giving them their due credit. I love Peter Jennings' extended reports on religion and social issues, as well as other anchors' books that are primarily their individual work. I also appreciate an anchor's timely questions and injections of their own opinions during an interview or anchoring. The word script is not always negative, as it is a useful and necessarily part of a good reporting.

Regarding the ONDCP story, show me the facts. I've seen numerous drug related stories on network TV to be skeptical of your assertion. For example, every major network reported medicinal marijuana use law passing in California and the controversy surrounding the Cannabis Club in Oakland, and I didn't feel that the networks were holding back anything. I would think that ONDCP pay for their ads, as they should, and are subject to any other advertisers when it comes to their rights to continue to advertise with a network or a station or not.

In a segment on PBS, mother companies, such as Disney owning ABC, potentially having some undue influence on news coverage affecting them were completely denied by all the CEOs, news directors and the media think tank representatives. Few informed persons believe that these news organizations and the reporters are controlled or influenced by the mother company or advertisers. In my opinion, the greater threat to their integrity for independent news is the managements' desire to achieve higher ratings (thus increasing their revenue) by sensationalization and too much entertainment content.

[Kilgore]

Fox News, fair and balanced? What a joke! :grin:

Every independent poll ever conducted rates FOX news as the least credible news source. CNN has been rated the most credible news network in the last ten years.

[ 01-15-2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: Kilgore ]

[Silver Hilton]

UL,

Please don't make more of what I am saying than is appropriate. My point is simply that news as presented in the media is in shades of grey, and the decisions are driven more by people that we don't see than those who we do see.

As for the ONDCP stuff, see this article.

And this one.

Or this one.

And don't miss this one.

I submit that its pretty well documented that information flow is being influenced.

[ 01-15-2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Silver Hilton ]

[ultralight]

Silver Hilton,

I'm not making more of what you said than what you have made of what I've said. I've never said that the news anchors control the content of the newscast. I thought we're discussing the credibility of anchors, but you brought up all these other irrelevant topics. How many people you know think that the anchors select the stories they tell on evening news? You go off on a tangent, too often.

I've read every source you've cited, but none are related to the subject at hand. We're talking about NEWS ANCHORS. Those articles have to do with networks and the government agency trying to sell their agenda to SHOWS. I hope you are objective enough to acknowledge that there is a difference between what network programming executives do and what the news manager does. To imply that ONDCP tried to influence the news coverage with money is not very credible.

[ 01-15-2003, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: ultralight ]

[Silver Hilton]

Well, I still think you're making more of my points than I intend, but let's not get worried about it.

The point with the ODNCP is that they spend literally a billion dollars a year in advertising and message placement on the networks. Specifically, they award and pull this money based on how the network in question promotes their cause. The networks demonstrably modify their programming in order to get this money. It is reasonable to suspect that this colors their thinking in how aggressively to pursue certain stories.

Or one can believe that our media is aboslutely objective, and never worries about offending it's source of revenue, the advertisers. For those who believe that, I have sad news about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, as well.

It's relevent, in my feeble mind at least, simply as an example of how the messages we see are influenced, and in how the anchors are not driving the bus. I'm sorry if I have misused your time in pursuing the thought.

[The Fishing Geek]

What? You trying to tell me that the government controls the media?

What are you? One of dem com-you-nists?