Charas-Project
Off-Topic => All of all! => Topic started by: Zerlina on January 17, 2011, 06:02:20 PM
-
Basically in order to allow the airing of a new news program called Sun TV (a TV extension of a newspaper here) the CRTC is changing its policy on misleading news, in order to allow more "American" news style programs like CNN or Fox.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/922697--crtc-may-ease-ban-on-broadcasting-false-or-misleading-news?bn=1
http://www.torontolife.com/daily/informer/mediaocracy/2010/11/26/“fox-news-north”-is-a-go-crtc/
To be fair this kind of news is a bit more entertaining than our usually half hour and (comparatively) bland news programs, but I can't say I'm very happy about it. What do you guys think? Should news be informative or entertaining? (Or both?)
(And you know what to be honest I actually enjoy watching CTV and CBC news even they seems less "exciting," I still think the traditional style of news is engaging, and less annoying than the alternative)
-
Yeah. When I watch news, I want news. I'm well aware I won't be laughing or having an amazingly good time, and it should be this way. It's informations, not entertainments.
-
Death and bad economy will never be funny.
Also, if the entertainment is what decides what people know at the end of the day - we live in a mad world.
-
Is it weird that I actually, when I want to, get a share fair of my news from The Daily Show?
-
Nope. Best source of politics and humor going.
That, or The Colbert Report.
-
Honestly, you're better off getting your information from either of those shows than "American-style" news. It's actual news, not 90% celebrity gossip and football.
EDIT: Oh god the football.
The football.
-
Daily Show isn't a news show, though, isn't it a comedy show? I always thought it was a spoof of the news like Canada's This Hour Has 22 Minutes but in a different style.
-
Humor, yes, but it's definitely got news. Real news. With humorous outlooks on the news.
-
Fox news is god awful and bias. No one should ever try to emulate them. Even cnn or cbs. "American" news sucks.
-
Yeah, informative. If I wanted entertainment, I'd be watching sitcoms. Which's the only thing I watch on TV, to be honest. But when I want to watch news, I just want the facts. Not supposed to be fun.
See the problem here thought? You say you watch the news for the news, which is fine, but you also say that you only watch sitcoms and don't watch the news very often. I'm the same way. A lot of people are. For whatever stupid reason, news shows are rated like normal TV programs, so if they don't get enough ratings they won't sell advertisement space well and they'll be on the chopping block for cancellation. Networks realize this and are trying to find ways to get people to watch the news so they feel they have to spice it up a bit. After all, news TV is in direct competition with news internet, and it's a heck of a lot easier to check a news website whenever you want than to plop in front of a TV and hope you pick up something interesting in between the local charity drives and commercials.
I don't watch much TV period so I'm a lost cause, but the majority of Americans watch a lot of it (early 2000's study: average free time an American has per week: 36 hours; average time they spend watching TV per week: 30 hours) so it's a real big issue for them.
-
xD
That's a ridiculous statistic. And not ridiculous as in "I don't believe you", but as in sickening.
And yeah, I'm at a loss as to why news channel's are rated for entertainment. It's why the Weather Channel sucks now. Local on the 8's has become "Local on some of the 8's", so they can air their stupid shows like "Storm Stories" and "How Weather Changed History". Damn it, you're the weather channel, if I want history, I'll go watch the HISTORY Channel.
I mean, I'm not that broken up about it, but it's just a bit dunce.
-
Well, still, News should remain News, not entertainment. I suppose you are right that not a lot of people watch the News since it's not as entertaining as sitcoms or such, but I'm pretty sure most people who watch the News expect it to be informative, not entertaining. At least it's the case for me. As Prpl_Mage said, Death will never be funny (though his post in the Real Super Heroes thing proves it could be) and I see way more Negative news than Positive.
I'm pretty sure Biographies (books) sells less then Novels or Comics. Will they try to make them more entertaining so they sell more?
-
I'm pretty sure Biographies (books) sells less then Novels or Comics. Will they try to make them more entertaining so they sell more?
I wouldn't put it past some people to exaggerate their stories so it's more interesting. Look at "A Million Little Pieces". It was suppose to be a 100% true story about this recovering drug addict. Oprah put it on her "OMG BOOKS" thing, and after the guy made a killing off of it, it came out that it wasn't true at all.
-
Oh well I suppose it was done already, then. Though this one is some kind of auto-biography, so it's easier to cheat. It just sucks.
-
I wouldn't put it past some people to exaggerate their stories so it's more interesting. Look at "A Million Little Pieces". It was suppose to be a 100% true story about this recovering drug addict. Oprah put it on her "OMG BOOKS" thing, and after the guy made a killing off of it, it came out that it wasn't true at all.
And Misha: A Memoir of the Holocaust Years where 10-year-old Misha stabs a Nazi rapist to death and gets adopted by a pack of wolves!
-
I'm just gonna state that no book is 100% true, someone will always make an event sound better / worse than it actually was. Writing about an mediocre life with "meh" happenings won't sell after all.
"The book of Tom and Bob. They went to the market and a thief asked for their wallet, they handed over their wallet then called their banks to block the cards. Tom was a bit shaken while Bob was angry. Then they had ice cream with their spare change."
-
Unfortunate to say that history books are far from true, one would need far to manage pages to include every vital part of history. And without every important factor - how can one claim it to be the truth?
When you reduce the contents of a book you also miss out on stuff. The writers weight the importance of facts and add what they think is important to know.
It's kinda like making a movie based on a book, half the book won't make it into the film and things will be a lot more action like than it was the book.
Pretty much every history book says that the states saved the world at the D-day, backed up by movies such as "saving private Ryan" and whatnot. But that's far from the truth, more -many more countries invaded Naziland about the same time, USA takes the credit for it though. Russia was beating the crap out of Nazi Germany from the east and had a good time burning things to the ground, why else would they get half a' Germany after the war ended?
-
Well, the problem remains. If don't want a book with 5000 pages you'll have to narrow things down.
And narrowing things down usually leads to generalizations and summaries that doesn't give you the whole picture, then the truth you learn is what the writers thought was relevant. So written truth = / truth.
-
Russia could kick the USA's butt any time.
But all my modern shooters suggest that we'd win! Why would they lie to me about a coming war that we'd win?!
Also, their economy isn't in such great shape that they could afford a modern war with us. We may be in a slump, but we're quick to throw money at military operations.
Come to think of it, a big reason Russia was owning in WWII had to do with them fighting on their turf. Home field advantage and whatnot. They knew the land, they had their reinforcements and surplus supplies within shouting range, they had the pride factor of defending their motherland from invaders, they had ridiculous numbers, and they could handle their harsh winters. Germans, on the other hand, had none of this.
-
Russia waited for Germany to invade like many countries before them, after their defenses took care of the Germans they totally zerg-rushed the pants off Germany.
-
Yeah, pretty much.
-
Like there was ever a time like that (after 1641).
-
Yay for Zerg Rushes.
Btw, yeah Archem, but I meant in the old days, when Russia wasn't as bad and the US wasn't as good.
I don't believe that Russia has ever not been "bad". Its just what "bad" meant changed through the years.
-
"Hitler was actually a great guy trying to fight off an evil alien species, but when the aliens went back in time and replaced him with an evil doppelganger version of himself that would start a World War on Earth."
I started to understand Lucas more when I realized that all of his arguments were just references to Epic Adventures.
-
Yeah, that's true.