What Would You Put on the Nightly News?

Complaining about the MSM is easy. Pointing to the precipitous drop in ratings and the current relavance is not much harder. Actually programming the news is quite a different story.

Believe it or not, thousands of "alternative news" programs have come and gone and you've never heard of any of them. Why? Because they could not attract any viewers. Some of you may be old enough to remember the early days of cable television. At that time, cable companies were required to provide "Cable Access" and training so the citizens could exercise their first Ammendment rights. Hard to believe.

Before I worked at MSNBC and the rest of the cable news networks, I got my training at Fairfax Cable Access, a non-profit subsidiary of what's now Comcast. Once you took a six week class and passed a test, you could book studio time. Then you had to round up volunteers. "News" or talk shows were the obvious choice although there was a working kitchen set up.

My point is that in spite of many genuine and sincere attempts, few people ever got much of a following unless their shows had to do with sex or other base topics. Most people got discouraged and gave up after a few months or became wedding videographers.

I put this question to ATS as I prepare to move back to DC. I am considering a couple ventures. What distinguishes me from my cable access peers is the fact that I maintain my professional connections to the DC news production community and I have a distinguished record as a promoter of rather large events. I know how to get people to show up.

I am asking sincerely for your input. For instance:
1. Does anybody watch the Prison Planet news on a regular basis, why?
2. Do you prefer your news in a graphical format? Why?
3. What sort of video content do you consume on a regular basis?
4. What are the average lengths of the pieces?
5. How exactly do you consume your news?
6. Do you pick up many small stories a la carte from a variety of sources?
7. Do you prefer more in depth interviews or stories?
8. How do you rate the importance of a source?
9. Is an "impressive lower third" or name tag below a guest's name important to you such as something like "Harvard Chairman of Middle East Studies" or do you give more credence to the live shot from Tarir Square with the active protestor?

I am depending on your honest input. I am in a position to make something happen. It is a risky venture given my responsibility to my family. I am absolutely certain about one thing and that is this.

Our collective fate is dependent upon a revolution of our action. Nothing is going to happen until all of us become involved. By standing by, content to simply post a few lines on a website, we are the problem. We are, in effect giving the Cabal our permission to treat us like ignorant slaves who are neither capable nor deserving of the "Freedom" many think exists.

I am nobody special. I am no genius. I make no promises other than that I have a history of simply being in the right place at the right time and able to combine existing resources in an innovative fashion. Any claim to future success will be a result of the collective efforts of many, many individuals working towards a common goal for the greater good.

And BTW, in case you are still wondering, I'm not kidding. I have a pile of press credentials and can describe the inside of every major cable news studio in DC as well as the Brookings Institution. The time is coming. The time is near. We can do this!

reply to post by zarp3333


The unbiased, unedited truth, without fear or favour, and, no reporters hypothesizing with interviewees about what might happen, or what the outcome might be, in any situation. Stick to the facts as known at the time. Hour long news programmes could be cut down to five minutes !

reply to post by zarp3333

1. Does anybody watch the Prison Planet news on a regular basis, why?

Every once and a while I will see something posted and watch it from Prison Planet, but I have never really checked them out.

2. Do you prefer your news in a graphical format? Why?

A mix of graphics and live.
people in boxes with titles of who they are underneath.
It is just easier to tell who is who and whats what that way.

3. What sort of video content do you consume on a regular basis?

A lot of music vids and science/space/nature stuff. Especially space though.

4. What are the average lengths of the pieces?

usually 3 to 5 minutes.

5. How exactly do you consume your news?

I get it from a variety, CNN, Fox, Rense, ATS because I find a lot of news links that I wouldn't of even knew existed.

6. Do you pick up many small stories a la carte from a variety of sources?

Yes, see above.

7. Do you prefer more in depth interviews or stories?

It depends on the subject. I actually prefer the bottom line most of the time.
Right to the point.

8. How do you rate the importance of a source?

Source is important. Has to be reliable and truthful.

9. Is an "impressive lower third" or name tag below a guest's name important to you such as something like "Harvard Chairman of Middle East Studies" or do you give more credence to the live shot from Tarir Square with the active protestor?

Both are important. Side by side preferred to one over the other. Live does tend to be much better though because you can formulate your own opinion.

reply to post by zarp3333


We appreciate your efforts here. This is necessary right now.

I find Prison Planet and Alex Jones in general to be an interesting starting point for some research, but I don't trust their actual presentation of news to be unbiased, even when I agree with it. I want the facts from my news, not opinion, reaction, editorialising, or demagoguery. Just tell me what's up, show me your sources and I'll form my own opinions on the topic. The feeling that I can't trust the news because the provider so clearly has an opinion on the topic one way or the other is why I haven't watched TV news in twelve years.

The graphical format of the news is irrelevent to me - if it's a topic I'm interested in, delivered without hyperbole or bias, with sources, the "format" is completely secondary. Don't feel like you need to sell us the news with TV tricks. What the world needs right now is unbiased clear facts on subjects that need more exposure. It doesn't need another jingle, slogan or celebrity news host.

I watch videos rarely, when a trusted source presents them. An alternative news show like yours, for example.

I tend to watch full-length documentaries on YouTube that are suggested by alternative news media, so the length of a piece is not a problem for me. Again, if I am interested, I am interested.

I get my news through following the linked sources in any article that crosses my path. Many times the first headline that you find on the net is not the full story. I utilize the ATS forums, sites like Reddit and certain FB connections, among others. I don't go out of my way to sit down at a certain time and check the news. Instead, whenever I have a moment or need a break, I cycle through my trusted news sources and check for updates. My favorite kind of news site would have frequent, small, well-sourced updates.

I do not prefer more in depth interviews or stories from my main news sites, actually. I want information, not a story. I want facts, not some persons' opinion. If an interview or in-depth story is necessary to provide all the information, then by-all-means. But in general, what we need is the information that you can't find elsewhere. The names and numbers.

The importance of a source is PARAMOUNT. The moment I cannot track your numbers or quotes to a source, I have ceased to trust you at all. "Some people say" or "Opinions are held" or any such nonsense is an immediate dealbreaker.

In the Tarir Square example you proposed, the mood and purpose of the protestors seems like the news I want to hear. I don't want to listen to one randomly selected protestors' opinion on things - that's bad sampling and not really news. If you perhaps had a collage of many protestors opinions, I would find that valid.

The "impressive lower third" obviously matters at least a little, but when you're introducing professionals to people that have never heard of them, some background is going to mean a lot more than a 'fancy' title.



Your post gave me hope for an unbiased, factual news outlet that would be talking about the things that are being ignored - like exactly what each and every congressman, governor and corporate policymaker are doing and with whom, each day, in DC. I'd love to see someone holding these people accountable for their votes in a way that was accessible to those of us who can't handle constant CSPAN.

One concern- while answering your questions I couldn't help but feel like you are gathering data to sell something, and that's a problem. Be different and you'll get the views. Try to SELL us a news station, the way all the others do, and you'll just be like all the others.

tl;dr Basically what would get me to watch, would be if you were different from everyone else, by not worrying about what would get me to watch. Provide the news, don't sell me anything.

Looking forward to seeing where your efforts take you. Good luck!

reply to post by newtotheseeking


First, thanks for your incredibly insightful answers. If I had my laptop I would drill down with clarifications and better answers.

Before I get to that, you bring up an important topic and that is "selling something." if the product does not have the look and feel of network/cable news, it will be dismissed with no attention paid to the content. Live news is a specialized product requiring a significant number of professionals.

We must generate income to cover expenses. Nobody can be expected to work for free other than pilot work and debugging transmission. That being said the success of the project on many levels depends on mass participation on a daily basis. For instance, I too want to know exactly what my representatives are doing every minute of the work day and I have a right to know.

Imagine an infrastructure comparable to Wikipedia wherein congressional staffers may fill in their Representaives schedule and itinerary on an hourly basis. CSPAN is a distraction designed with subversive intention of projecting accountability. When in actuality, guests appear at their whim when the feel a need to show the fools that their employee punched in this or that month. It's theater.

Imagine also citizens of a particular district with an interest in some legislation using our site to send out alerts of MeetUps in their state or in DC or alerts to attend votes on the floor of the house or senate.

Those inputs would require only a couple minutes work of an individual. Imagine if thousands put in a couple minutes per day? Do you understand how much content would be generated, how much work would be done? Once people realized that they indeed participated in a meaningful way, it would snowball.

I can't type fast enough to convey how I am becoming more confident. I will share more when I get to my laptop.

1. Does anybody watch the Prison Planet news on a regular basis, why?
No. The doom and gloom is too much for me, too much for most mainstream viewers as well, probably. They have an agenda, just like everyone else. An agenda-less news source is what we need. Facts, no spin. We don't watch to be entertained, we watch to be informed.

2. Do you prefer your news in a graphical format? Why?
If by graphical format you mean literally, graphs and charts, then sure. If they help to illustrate a point, use them. However I don't need holograms and pretty animations interacting with the news anchors.

3. What sort of video content do you consume on a regular basis?
Anything, everything. TV, film, documentaries, decent user generated content, podcasts, animation, information, education, investigation, tutorials.

4. What are the average lengths of the pieces?
From minutes to hours, it's hard to tell. It really depends on the content.

5. How exactly do you consume your news?
Mostly via the internet.

6. Do you pick up many small stories a la carte from a variety of sources?
Yes, Reddit, ATS, CNN.com, etc etc etc. I rarely gain anything from watching television news. By the time it has aired at 6 o'clock in the evening I've already heard about it the night before. On top of that, the individuals online usually have everything fact checked from every angle shortly after it hits. I can very rarely keep up with the news using only TV unless I have CNN running all day long, and even then don't they replay a great deal of their programming?

7. Do you prefer more in depth interviews or stories?
It depends. If there is going to be a live interview, and it goes kind of sour, someone needs to have the guts to say "You are an imbecile. Cut his mic. I'm sorry viewers, this person is attempting to deceive you." While I can't name any off the top of my head, I wouldn't be inaccurate to say that those who conduct interviews ignore outright lies in order to keep things smooth and move the interview along. That needs to stop. At least with a pre recorded interview and story you can insert segments that call them out on their lies.

8. How do you rate the importance of a source?
Very important.

9. Is an "impressive lower third" or name tag below a guest's name important to you such as something like "Harvard Chairman of Middle East Studies" or do you give more credence to the live shot from Tarir Square with the active protestor?
Depends who it is. I hate listening to someone stutter through a Q&A, as long as the person is qualified to speak about the matter and all sides are taken into consideration it's all good.


I'd say these days younger individuals are more informed than their elders. We're online constantly, news hits us first, and we know how to check a story out and verify whether or not it's legit. We also understand it's not all black and white all the time. The older generation though...if it's not on the six o'clock news, in the paper, or on the radio on the way in to work, it's not happening, it doesn't exist. And once they've taken it in from those sources, they take it as fact. Because it's on TV, it's true, they wouldn't just allow someone to go on and lie...right? Right? Remember that this is the generation that believes and passes along those "If this gets posted on 5000 walls little Timmy will get his chemo treatment!!!" posts on facebook. Or falling for the "We needs you to update your credit card information" emails. Think about that for a minute. Those people CAN VOTE. Forget the cringe worthy lack of tech know-how, that's a horrifying and dangerous display of gullibility.

Back to basics. If we are going to be affected by older voters for a few more decades, they should at least be informed with FACTS. Report the news that "matters". Though that's a subjective term, if one can't figure out what news matters they must have trouble finding their way out of their house in the morning. Fashion, film, tv, music, video games, pop culture, celebrities...all those are niche interests and shouldn't be on the news. We can explore those in our leisure time. Politics, business, health, social issues, technology, etc, that's what we need to hear about on a daily basis.

My dream news source would be something that was available on TV, as well as stream live online. 24/7. The online version would have a live discussion/post area which the news anchor would keep up with while the news pieces are being discussed with their guests. Live fact checkers would work together to verify anything being said by the guests. If someone discovers an inconsistency, it's addressed. If the person beats around the bush or just starts talking about something else their mic is cut and remains cut until they address the issue. That would make a world of difference.

Good luck in the future. I'm glad to hear that there are people who have the opportunity to do something about it that actually care.

Also, maybe you should request to have the thread moved to a different section? Not sure if this one would be the best to put it in. I can't help but think that the thread isn't going to get the attention it deserves.

reply to post by zarp3333


It's funny how in 2 years of membership to this site I still haven't posted enough to allow me to respond to your U2U directly. Oh well. I think I communicate better when I say less anyway.

Even though this thread hasn't garnered a heap of attention, I want to say thanks for getting the ball rolling! I meant to tell you the other day that I understand the need for financial support or 'selling' for a program such as this, and I wanted to clarify that, for me, as long as you're 'selling' your program with integrity, I'd be happy to buy.

When I get the sense that someone is standing up for truth at any cost, it makes it easier to smile through the occasional ad or sales pitch.

I'm excited to see what's going to happen next! I'd like to hear more about your plans for fighting the natural apathy that tends to occur on sites that undertake endeavors like this. I believe you could find a way to make something amazing that will benefit a lot of people - and hold their interest to boot.

Cheers,
ntts

reply to post by Morgenstern89


Morganstern, it's amazing the kinds of things you mention. For instance. I had picked up a Palestinian client
for media training so he could debate the 2 state issue. I studied for weeks on the issue using a variety of non-biased histories.

One night while working on Hardball w/Chris Matthews, a guest named Daniel Pipes, flatly stated an absolute falsehood. I will never forget standing just off camera, looking around and waiting for...for...for somebody to do something, object, correct. Where's the truth patrol?

At that instant, I recognized just how easy it is to make up history. It was a loss of naïveté and a sickening realization.

With the advent of live 2-way communication, there can be live "fact checkers."

Originally posted by newtotheseeking
reply to post by zarp3333

 

It's funny how in 2 years of membership to this site I still haven't posted enough to allow me to respond to your U2U directly. Oh well. I think I communicate better when I say less anyway.

Even though this thread hasn't garnered a heap of attention, I want to say thanks for getting the ball rolling! I meant to tell you the other day that I understand the need for financial support or 'selling' for a program such as this, and I wanted to clarify that, for me, as long as you're 'selling' your program with integrity, I'd be happy to buy.

When I get the sense that someone is standing up for truth at any cost, it makes it easier to smile through the occasional ad or sales pitch.

I'm excited to see what's going to happen next! I'd like to hear more about your plans for fighting the natural apathy that tends to occur on sites that undertake endeavors like this. I believe you could find a way to make something amazing that will benefit a lot of people - and hold their interest to boot.

Cheers,
ntts

The challenges are
1. making enough to cover the costs of crew and the producers (myself included)
2. Discovering innovative ways to take advantage of the two-way, democratic nature of the Internet
3. Find a way to draw an audience and project growth with respect to validity of concept and income.
4. Demonstrate the hypothesis that Americans are neither lazy nor ignorant and will respond to a call to action if given the means by which to have an impact.

I do newspapers here and all they do is raise my blood pressure but we still read them with supper.
The crap is so obvious that anyone can see it but, there are a few gems in the news and the gems are the oops i misspoke comments.

The only thing I can really offer to your proposition is that if you go video please please do not run banners anywhere to distract from what you are trying to get across and Please do not be bought.

Personally here we like our news in print on the internet, we usually get the news here first and then read it about a week later in the paper.

Many positive thoughts to you and your potential news operation.

Regards, Iwinder & YogaGinns

I watch the Hispanic news,
30 minutes a day of film of beheading, gun battles
and decaying bodies of those that die trying to cross.
it is a sober reminder of life along the border.
They say the body count is almost 40,000 now.
While at the same time show stories of Obama and how
he is from the government and here to help them.

I hope this can help you a little bit.

People like us, and people that can see through biased comments like people who just REPORT THE NEWS. Report what is going on with no suggestive commentary aimed towards a certain side.

What made me realize this a LOT would be the Chicago NATO protests I just watched on the news.
I live RIGHT outside Chicago, so I was very interested in this.

One news cast (wcltv news or something like that) would report what they SAW. They ha a great top of the building view that had a fantastic angle probably yhe best out of all of them. It was rught at the CPD/protestor line, when they were trying to push them away from McCormic place in the afternoon of the first day of the summit. When police were beating protestors with batons, the reporter was speechless and was like, holy crap they're hitting them.

ABC7 news had a nice view, and when they saw police beating the protestors the reporter was like.
Welllll I'm really not sure what's going on right now...
He kissed the CPD's ass. STRAIGHT UP called all of the protestors "anarchists"
It was CPD vs. the Dangerous Anarchists.
Horribly biased.

So people who can realize both sides of the story, or see through MSM lies, prefer unbiased news.


People who only see one side (unfortunately most of America, although many are starting to see through the lies and media bias.) are going to watch the extremely biased news. The news that calls all of the protestors anarchist terrorists.

I like unbiased news. News that goes deep into the subject and explores both sides.


There was a black, younger looking reporter on CNN during the protests.
He was very brave and opinionated! I loved it. He seemed like he didn't fear "the man."
He straight up was like. The protestors are being beaten, that messed up. Spoke out against corruption.
And ofcourse he was on by 10 or 11 at night.

I hate to keep mentioning how ATS used to be but it's very critical to understanding my vision. I went back and read a thread by "TheHiddenHand," from 2008. The intellectual caliber of questions was remarkable. The point is no traditional anchor or host of a nightly news or cable show could ever hope to have the depth of the combined members of ATS.

The program must function less as a train engineer, simply starting and stopping at stations along a prescribed, linear, predictable and boring route. The program must be a facilitator of a conversation mediated by the collective mind, whose journey is determined organically based on the needs/demands of the consumers at any given point under any given conditions. Does this make sense to anybody?

I am really seeing it. I am going to DC this weekend for Rolling thunder. I will be managing the stage near the reflecting pool. Please join me.

Originally posted by novemberecho
I hope this can help you a little bit.

People like us, and people that can see through biased comments like people who just REPORT THE NEWS. Report what is going on with no suggestive commentary aimed towards a certain side.

What made me realize this a LOT would be the Chicago NATO protests I just watched on the news.
I live RIGHT outside Chicago, so I was very interested in this.

One news cast (wcltv news or something like that) would report what they SAW. They ha a great top of the building view that had a fantastic angle probably yhe best out of all of them. It was rught at the CPD/protestor line, when they were trying to push them away from McCormic place in the afternoon of the first day of the summit. When police were beating protestors with batons, the reporter was speechless and was like, holy crap they're hitting them.

ABC7 news had a nice view, and when they saw police beating the protestors the reporter was like.
Welllll I'm really not sure what's going on right now...
He kissed the CPD's ass. STRAIGHT UP called all of the protestors "anarchists"
It was CPD vs. the Dangerous Anarchists.
Horribly biased.

So people who can realize both sides of the story, or see through MSM lies, prefer unbiased news.


People who only see one side (unfortunately most of America, although many are starting to see through the lies and media bias.) are going to watch the extremely biased news. The news that calls all of the protestors anarchist terrorists.

I like unbiased news. News that goes deep into the subject and explores both sides.


There was a black, younger looking reporter on CNN during the protests.
He was very brave and opinionated! I loved it. He seemed like he didn't fear "the man."
He straight up was like. The protestors are being beaten, that messed up. Spoke out against corruption.
And ofcourse he was on by 10 or 11 at night.

What I ask you to understand is people my age have been conditioned to believe "The Man" on a conscious level. On a subconscious level, they become fearful because they feel powerless to do anything about it.

Some of the beatings are purposefully covered to illicit the "sheep vs wolf response." where a herd of sheep being stalked by a wolf will cause a willful ignoring of the predator because the recognition of the predator necessarily causes the inevitable attack and it's the sheep that looks directly into the eyes of the wolf who gets it.

I experienced this phenomenon with a German shepherd under the supervision of an army soldier assigned to protect Dick Cheyney when he was at the studio. A colleague looked into the dog's eyes and it lunged.

The only cure to the effect is giving the sheep a weapon. If they could do something to ensure their survival, or turn the wolf into a puppy, so to speak, the would react completely differently. That's at the core of this very problem. People must be empowered. That requires participation and confidence.

reply to post by zarp3333


That was a beautiful post and metaphor.

And I in no way doubt what you have said.
I for one believe and understand that people act a certain way because of the way that they were raised. Children and Young people are very impressionable at the age that they are. An I believe that that affects you for your life.
Why do you think the nazis believe what they did? That's how they were raised. Why do some people hate gays? That's how they were raised.

Of course people can break the mold. But it is not a very common thing.

Originally posted by zarp3333
reply to post by Morgenstern89

 

Morganstern, it's amazing the kinds of things you mention. For instance. I had picked up a Palestinian client
for media training so he could debate the 2 state issue. I studied for weeks on the issue using a variety of non-biased histories.

One night while working on Hardball w/Chris Matthews, a guest named Daniel Pipes, flatly stated an absolute falsehood. I will never forget standing just off camera, looking around and waiting for...for...for somebody to do something, object, correct. Where's the truth patrol?

At that instant, I recognized just how easy it is to make up history. It was a loss of naïveté and a sickening realization.

With the advent of live 2-way communication, there can be live "fact checkers."

I believe that that kind of lack of accountability is what tends to lead to people blindly accepting the whole "the other team is lying" mentality when it comes to political/social issues. If no one ever corrects a guest, or a host no less, people just believe that that person is giving a fact when it's a distortion, a misguided opinion, or a flat out lie. It basically comes down to what side you align yourself with, and you -choose- to think no further than that. I think the real trick will be how to draw people like that in without alienating them immediately. As mocking as this sounds, I mean it sincerely, such an influx of truth, logic, and intellect will scare/anger/confuse them. Obviously, people react with their base intellect when it comes to these things. It will be difficult to appeal to people who have trouble "understanding" an issue beyond a catch phrase or bumper sticker.

Being able to work in the online element will help a great deal. You essentially have to educate people from scratch before they can understand or accept anything they see on the channel. Have very simple articles for those who prefer to read, and very simple videos for those who prefer to watch, explaining a variety of issues. Something that could easily be read or watched in 5 minutes. Something that explains each sides issues, where each side is right (if applicable), where they are wrong (if applicable), where each side is biased (always applicable), present the straight facts, and then discuss where the compromise lies. If someone is coming on to discuss an issue, the host could give people a small heads up to check out one or two pertinent articles/videos before the guest is set to appear, and then they are left to form their own -educated- opinion while watching.

There will be things that have to be tip toed around. You want to educate people, but you don't want to make them feel like their intelligence is being insulted. It has to be made so that at the end of the day, after reading an article or watching a video, they have to be comfortable with the idea that they may have been wrong, or at the least uninformed about a number of their opinions.

I'd -love- to be able to consume news like that. I'm no expert on any of the big issues facing us today, I certainly hold opinions on a few, but I'm not a vault of facts. I'd love to be able to catch up on the key points before listening to an interview or even more importantly, before a political debate of any kind. It has to be made easy to be informed, because TPTB (and I hate using that term) depend on us being uneducated to jerk us around and pull the wool over our eyes.

The facts...that's what I want to see on the news..FACTS. Not opinion..subliminal propaganda or editorials..just what..where..when..how..and who..and so, be given the respect that would allow me to form my own opinion and views. Its not that hard to be objective...

On DEF day ABC happened..to HGF.

HGF, TYK and POL were all involved in ABC incident.... and each group said/reports: group1, group2 ,group3 and governmental reaction was 'xyz'.

Simple..done..nothing more needed..if you want entertaining switch channels...news reporting should be news..no bs..no slanting..no pushing a view, just the facts.

If media - all media stuck to this..I think life would be grand, but they don't, not mainstream or alternative. So we have this growing culture of ' opinion as fact' and 'opinion/entertainment as news' where emotion dominates instead of reason and peoples emotional triggers by way of reactive viewers and fearing political leaders..are setting global policy or are being used as tools for mass dissemination.


Ro

God news