“Me hice periodista porque no quería depender de los periódicos para obtener información”. -Christopher Hitchens
En periodismo las malas noticias venden. “Si sangra, lidera” es un famoso eslogan de la industria, que explica por qué los crímenes violentos, la guerra, el terrorismo y los desastres naturales son omnipresentes en las noticias de televisión. El hecho de que los periodistas y sus colaboradores ganen dinero con acontecimientos preocupantes es algo que los investigadores rara vez exploran. Pero incluso si parece desagradable, es importante comprender el vínculo entre las noticias negativas y las ganancias. Como historiador de los medios, creo que estudiar este tema puede arrojar luz sobre las fuerzas que dan forma al periodismo contemporáneo.
El asesinato de John F. Kennedy hace 60 años ofrece un caso de estudio. Después de que un hombre armado matara al presidente, los noticieros televisivos ofrecieron una cobertura ininterrumpida de pared a pared a un costo considerable para las cadenas. Esto le valió a los noticieros televisivos una reputación de espíritu público que dura décadas. Esta reputación (que puede parecer sorprendente ahora pero que fue ampliamente aceptada en su momento) ocultó el hecho de que las noticias por televisión pronto se volverían grandes rentables. Esas ganancias se deben en parte a que las malas noticias atraen a grandes audiencias, lo que sigue siendo así hoy en día.
Poco después de que Kennedy fuera asesinado en Dallas el 22 de noviembre de 1963, las cadenas de televisión demostraron su sensibilidad ante la tragedia cancelando comerciales y dedicando todo su tiempo al aire a la historia durante varios días. El presidente de CBS, Frank Stanton, la llamaría más tarde “la historia ininterrumpida más larga en la historia de la televisión”. En un momento dado, el 93% de todos los televisores estadounidenses estaban sintonizados con la cobertura. Las estimaciones varían, pero la decisión de las cadenas de renunciar a los anuncios puede haberles costado hasta 19 millones de dólares, lo que equivale a 191 millones de dólares en 2023.
Durante décadas, las cadenas mostraron la cobertura de sus asesinatos como el epítome del servicio público. Y una y otra vez, ejecutivos de cadenas y periodistas argumentaron que las noticias televisivas estaban excepcionalmente protegidas de las presiones económicas que se encuentran en otras partes de la radiodifusión. Las noticias de televisión a principios de la década de 1960 fueron “la principal pérdida que permitió a NBC, CBS y ABC justificar las enormes ganancias obtenidas por sus divisiones de entretenimiento”, recordó Ted Koppel de ABC News en The Washington Post en 2010. Añadió : “Nunca ocurrió a los altos mandos de la cadena que la programación de noticias podría ser rentable”.
La narrativa de servicio público que echó raíces en noviembre de 1963 ignoró el hecho de que las enormes audiencias que recurrían a las noticias televisivas en busca de información y consuelo pronto se volverían muy lucrativas. Sólo dos meses antes del asesinato de Kennedy, en septiembre de 1963, las cadenas ampliaron sus noticieros nocturnos a 30 minutos. Anteriormente habían durado 15 minutos y ofrecían poco más que titulares. Los noticieros ampliados agotaron inmediatamente todas sus oportunidades publicitarias, ya que los noticieros televisivos se atrajeron a las audiencias masivas diarias predecibles que ansiaban los patrocinadores.
La cobertura del asesinato de Kennedy, combinada con la ampliación de los noticieros, aumentó significativamente el valor comercial de las noticias televisivas. A lo largo de la década de 1960, el periodismo televisivo comenzó a madurar hasta convertirse en el género de programación más lucrativo de la televisión estadounidense. En la temporada televisiva 1965-1966, “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” de NBC generó 27 millones de dólares en publicidad al año, lo que lo convertía en el programa más lucrativo de la cadena, superando incluso a “Bonanza”, el programa de entretenimiento más importante. “The CBS Evening News” estaba recaudando 25,5 millones de dólares en publicidad, lo que lo convertía en el segundo programa más rentable de la televisión estadounidense. Por esa época, las cadenas les decían a los reguladores que habían sacrificado millones de dólares por el servicio público a través del periodismo. Por ejemplo, en un testimonio de 1965 ante la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones, ejecutivos de ABC, CBS y NBC dijeron que sus divisiones de noticias tenían motivos más elevados que simplemente ganar dinero.
Pero estaban ganando dinero, y mucho. En 1969, “Huntley-Brinkley” ganó 34 millones de dólares en publicidad con un presupuesto de producción de 7,2 millones de dólares, lo que convertía al programa –según la revista Fortune– en “la mayor fuente de ingresos que la N.B.C. La cadena tiene… más grande que ‘Laugh-In’ o ‘The Dean Martin Show’”. Una década antes, “Huntley-Brinkley” había estado ganando sólo 8 millones de dólares en ingresos por publicidad y patrocinio. Sin embargo, las cadenas no promocionaron sus ganancias. En cambio, promovieron continuamente sus esfuerzos cubriendo la guerra de Vietnam, los disturbios civiles y los asesinatos de la década de 1960 como un servicio al interés público. También afirmaron que la producción de noticias les costaba millones y ocultaron los ingresos publicitarios acumulados por la programación de noticias en otras partes de sus presupuestos corporativos. Hacer esto les dio una ventaja en privilegios regulatorios, como la renovación de licencias de estaciones.
En última instancia, la década caótica, cacofónica y confusa de los años 1960 terminaría lanzando el mundo de los medios hipercomerciales en el que vivimos hoy. Buscar historias de investigación sensacionalistas, como Watergate y el escándalo Irán-Contra de armas por rehenes, generaría índices de audiencia más altos y más ingresos por publicidad, y convertiría a los periodistas televisivos en celebridades nacionales. Los valores originales que animaron el periodismo televisivo en sus inicios se rendirían ante formatos más lucrativos. “60 Minutes” –una producción de CBS News– eventualmente se convirtió en la propiedad de programación propiedad de una cadena más valiosa en la historia de la televisión estadounidense, y en la década de 1980 casi todas las estaciones de noticias locales habían lanzado su propio grupo de investigaciones “I-Team”.
Con el tiempo, el profesionalismo que atrajo a las audiencias a las noticias televisivas tras el asesinato de Kennedy en 1963 sería suplantado por estrategias de crecimiento de audiencia vendidas por los consultores de noticias televisivas. Los análisis de audiencia, las métricas de participación minuto a minuto y los Q-scores que calibran la “simpatía” del presentador estandarizarían los formatos y homogeneizarían la recopilación de noticias en el intento de maximizar las ganancias. Sin embargo, a lo largo de las décadas, permanece una constante: las malas noticias venden. Es una perogrullada de la industria de los medios de comunicación, nos guste o no estudiarla, y los noticieros que se transmiten hoy, 60 años después de los acontecimientos de noviembre de 1963, lo demuestran.
I don’t feel as though advertising will be how media companies will make profits in the future. I guess it seems like advertising is how media companies make money at the moment. But I don’t think making money from advertising is the purpose for why the media companies were created and particularly their expansion to the giants we have today. I’m not being conspiratorial, or even utopian – I just feel social media companies haven’t tapped into their potential as yet.
I get paid over ??200$?? per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over ??10k?? a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
?? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> work.salary49.com
The need to have information before someone else, the need to be the first to bring up facts that others aren’t privy to, the anxiety of not know everything about every subject that other’s seem to know about. This continuous feedback loop, and hunger for information is putting pressure on journalist to feed the stories to us on demand.
I remember Tony Mendez was a genius. He died prematurely. But a true Fine Artist, became CIA and a genius! Mendez came up with this idea and was a 25-year CIA veteran with his wife Jonna Mendez, Disguise Chief CIA. A true dynamic duo. Tony was a document specialist and successfully ran many, many brilliant operations. And the wonderful Ken Taylor was an incredible Canadian Ambassador. That TV coverage was breath-taken.
Until very recently the local news filled programming slots for 90 minutes per weekday. Coupled with the national news on all three of the major networks, there 120 minutes a day on weekdays, with 60 minutes on Saturday and anywhere 90–120 minutes on Sundays, excluding political news programming such Meet the Press and Face the Nation. Anyway… in 1980 Ted Turner created CNN which launched 24-hour news coverage. It, along with its companion channel CNN2 (aka Headline News, now HLN) showed news programming all day, every day and it was a revolutionary tactic at the time. Even though NBC technically had a late night news program which featured journalist Linda Ellerbee and ABC was running what became Nightline which was concentrated in the ongoing Iranian hostage crisis, CNN was the first time that anyone tried to have a channel that aired only the news. As other answers have noted, the Second Gulf War in 1991 is what “made” CNN. the network scooped the Big Three and it provided insight into the conflict which the others did not. CNN began to grow larger and created multiple bureaus, and eventually, an international channel. Other networks noticed this and attempted their own programming and channels. The most successful of these were:
MSNBC
CNBC
Fox News and its affiliate channels
Additionally, the population demographics of the United States changed as did the television business. There were fewer children being born meaning that time could have been used to show programming for them could now be devoted to adult-oriented programming. Television stations also realized that they could make money by selling their airtime for the entire 24 hour day to either syndicate programming, or paid informercials. This meant that if people were working off shifts, were traveling or simply couldn’t sleep, they could turn on a television and see the latest “news” whenever they chose to. While this doesn’t seem odd to the current generation (which is accustomed to Internet and news apps) 24 hour news was viewed as being revolutionary. Stories could be covered in detail (well…at least that was the idea). And news stories from outside of the United States or from distant areas within the country could be covered as they happened. The appeal of this was seen by all of the major players and it is now a “standard.” Sooo…questioner, changes in the population demographics and the television industry realizing that it could earn a great of revenue from 24 hour programming are the among the primary reasons that all day news came into being.
The dedicated news channels are now the dominant modes of news dissemination: they feel authoritative because news is all that they do. They’ve discovered that there isn’t usually 24 hours worth of news*, and have to engage in all kind of non-news activities to keep viewers interested. So the notion of “24 hour news” is a very different kind of “news” than the 30 minute news reports.
The Gulf War was real 24-hour news content: there really could be a reason to watch it live. CNN was the first network to bring continuous live coverage directly from the war. People would tune in for hours at a time, rather than in 30 minute bursts.
I wonder if anyone interviewed is still alive. i imagine that for many this might be one of the few recordings they have of relatives who were interviewed but since have passed away.
It just amazes me how unemotional and surprisingly calm the people were in Dallas, New Orleans on that fateful day. Makes you think about how hated JFK must have been in the South at the time. I was only 3 years old when JFK was assassinated so I asked my parents later how they felt about the assassination. My mother coldly remarked that she wasn’t upset like some others living in the Northeast. She said “it wasn’t like he was a family member!.”I have to say I was embarrassed to hear my mother say something like that! But maybe if you had voted for Nixon in 1960 like my folks did, I guess you wouldn’t have cared so much but just move on with everyday your lives. Maybe a lot of Americans didn’t care much for JFK at the time and we have turned the assassination into a national tragedy and now think of him as a martyr. I would like people to reply to these comments and tell me how they felt at the time. Again I was only five years old. The only thing I was upset about was that there were no Saturday morning kid shows on TV! TV was showing news about JFK.
Imagine the people, along the parade route, standing next to the limo as it passed, that actually witnessed that last shot, that blew the president s head off, and the scars that must have left , as far as their memory of this horrible day, for the rest of their lives.
My mom was just 12 when this happened. She’s told me the story of that day many times, and about the moment she found out when she was in school. The shock and amount of overwhelming grief was just unimaginable. In my own lifetime, 9/11 had a similar feeling of unimaginable shock, and I remember that whole day like it was yesterday myself.
Actually, 24 hour news cycle in the U.S. started with Ted Turner in the early 1980’s when he launched CNN (Cable News Network). (Prior to that, there actually were radio networks that gave top-of-the-hour newscasts at all hours.) His grand vision was to involve all TV stations around the country to share his news coverage and contribute their own stories — kind of like a giant news cooperative. It was a great idea that went sour within perhaps three years, because there was so much pushback from the big three TV networks. (Sort of like the way Tucker was pushed out the automobile business by the other big manufacturers.) Also, lining up advertisers was tough, because CNN’s content was “too newsy” and unexciting. (Just look at Fox today. They get lots of viewers, because they manage to stir things up. Viewers would rather be riled up than be informed.) Still, even with limited (and even banned) story input from around the country’s TV stations, CNN kept on. And other cable news outlets in the U.S. sprouted up and followed Turner’s basic 24 hour news concept. But their content has moved farther away from straight news and toward more commentary, just as CNN eventually did. It’s better for ratings. Not so good for hard information. Outside the U.S. there’s the BBC, Al Jazeera and others who carry lots of straightforward news around the clock (though with some repetition.) Ted Turner is kind of one my heroes. He deduced, correctly, that there’s enough news around the country (and around the world) to easily fill 24 hours every day, all year long. I first became acquainted with CNN in Germany when the American hostages were released from Tehran, Iran. Daniel Shore, formerly of CBS, was on the scene with CNN. Back then (in 1981) CNN was big stuff, and I had high hopes for it.
◘
-Christopher Hitchens
En periodismo las malas noticias venden. “Si sangra, lidera” es un famoso eslogan de la industria, que explica por qué los crímenes violentos, la guerra, el terrorismo y los desastres naturales son omnipresentes en las noticias de televisión. El hecho de que los periodistas y sus colaboradores ganen dinero con acontecimientos preocupantes es algo que los investigadores rara vez exploran. Pero incluso si parece desagradable, es importante comprender el vínculo entre las noticias negativas y las ganancias. Como historiador de los medios, creo que estudiar este tema puede arrojar luz sobre las fuerzas que dan forma al periodismo contemporáneo.
Poco después de que Kennedy fuera asesinado en Dallas el 22 de noviembre de 1963, las cadenas de televisión demostraron su sensibilidad ante la tragedia cancelando comerciales y dedicando todo su tiempo al aire a la historia durante varios días. El presidente de CBS, Frank Stanton, la llamaría más tarde “la historia ininterrumpida más larga en la historia de la televisión”. En un momento dado, el 93% de todos los televisores estadounidenses estaban sintonizados con la cobertura. Las estimaciones varían, pero la decisión de las cadenas de renunciar a los anuncios puede haberles costado hasta 19 millones de dólares, lo que equivale a 191 millones de dólares en 2023.
Durante décadas, las cadenas mostraron la cobertura de sus asesinatos como el epítome del servicio público. Y una y otra vez, ejecutivos de cadenas y periodistas argumentaron que las noticias televisivas estaban excepcionalmente protegidas de las presiones económicas que se encuentran en otras partes de la radiodifusión. Las noticias de televisión a principios de la década de 1960 fueron “la principal pérdida que permitió a NBC, CBS y ABC justificar las enormes ganancias obtenidas por sus divisiones de entretenimiento”, recordó Ted Koppel de ABC News en The Washington Post en 2010. Añadió : “Nunca ocurrió a los altos mandos de la cadena que la programación de noticias podría ser rentable”.
La cobertura del asesinato de Kennedy, combinada con la ampliación de los noticieros, aumentó significativamente el valor comercial de las noticias televisivas. A lo largo de la década de 1960, el periodismo televisivo comenzó a madurar hasta convertirse en el género de programación más lucrativo de la televisión estadounidense. En la temporada televisiva 1965-1966, “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” de NBC generó 27 millones de dólares en publicidad al año, lo que lo convertía en el programa más lucrativo de la cadena, superando incluso a “Bonanza”, el programa de entretenimiento más importante. “The CBS Evening News” estaba recaudando 25,5 millones de dólares en publicidad, lo que lo convertía en el segundo programa más rentable de la televisión estadounidense. Por esa época, las cadenas les decían a los reguladores que habían sacrificado millones de dólares por el servicio público a través del periodismo. Por ejemplo, en un testimonio de 1965 ante la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones, ejecutivos de ABC, CBS y NBC dijeron que sus divisiones de noticias tenían motivos más elevados que simplemente ganar dinero.
Pero estaban ganando dinero, y mucho. En 1969, “Huntley-Brinkley” ganó 34 millones de dólares en publicidad con un presupuesto de producción de 7,2 millones de dólares, lo que convertía al programa –según la revista Fortune– en “la mayor fuente de ingresos que la N.B.C. La cadena tiene… más grande que ‘Laugh-In’ o ‘The Dean Martin Show’”. Una década antes, “Huntley-Brinkley” había estado ganando sólo 8 millones de dólares en ingresos por publicidad y patrocinio. Sin embargo, las cadenas no promocionaron sus ganancias. En cambio, promovieron continuamente sus esfuerzos cubriendo la guerra de Vietnam, los disturbios civiles y los asesinatos de la década de 1960 como un servicio al interés público. También afirmaron que la producción de noticias les costaba millones y ocultaron los ingresos publicitarios acumulados por la programación de noticias en otras partes de sus presupuestos corporativos. Hacer esto les dio una ventaja en privilegios regulatorios, como la renovación de licencias de estaciones.
En última instancia, la década caótica, cacofónica y confusa de los años 1960 terminaría lanzando el mundo de los medios hipercomerciales en el que vivimos hoy. Buscar historias de investigación sensacionalistas, como Watergate y el escándalo Irán-Contra de armas por rehenes, generaría índices de audiencia más altos y más ingresos por publicidad, y convertiría a los periodistas televisivos en celebridades nacionales. Los valores originales que animaron el periodismo televisivo en sus inicios se rendirían ante formatos más lucrativos. “60 Minutes” –una producción de CBS News– eventualmente se convirtió en la propiedad de programación propiedad de una cadena más valiosa en la historia de la televisión estadounidense, y en la década de 1980 casi todas las estaciones de noticias locales habían lanzado su propio grupo de investigaciones “I-Team”.
Con el tiempo, el profesionalismo que atrajo a las audiencias a las noticias televisivas tras el asesinato de Kennedy en 1963 sería suplantado por estrategias de crecimiento de audiencia vendidas por los consultores de noticias televisivas. Los análisis de audiencia, las métricas de participación minuto a minuto y los Q-scores que calibran la “simpatía” del presentador estandarizarían los formatos y homogeneizarían la recopilación de noticias en el intento de maximizar las ganancias. Sin embargo, a lo largo de las décadas, permanece una constante: las malas noticias venden. Es una perogrullada de la industria de los medios de comunicación, nos guste o no estudiarla, y los noticieros que se transmiten hoy, 60 años después de los acontecimientos de noviembre de 1963, lo demuestran.
PrisioneroEnArgentina.com
Diciembre 17, 2023
Tags: Christopher Hitchens, Dean Martin, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Periodismo, Ted Koppel, TV Noticias, WatergateRelated Posts
El Negociador
◘ Por Delia Crespo. Durante más de 43 años [...]
Una Mente Sin Igual
♣ Por Darcy O’Brien. En los anales de [...]
Medios dólares Kennedy
♣ Por Venezia Johnson. Los medios dólares Kennedy [...]
41 thoughts on “El asesinato de Kennedy y el auge de las noticias televisivas”
-
-
-
-
-
-
- paula anti k
- posted on December 19, 2023
-
-
- John Dean
- posted on December 18, 2023
-
- wetohe
- posted on December 18, 2023
-
- Pete
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- greg j.
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- robert pinklon
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- magical_snowbird
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Just my imagination
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- rochelle jones 1525
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Spike Newell
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- kimberley kifoischild
- posted on December 17, 2023
- MSNBC
- CNBC
- Fox News and its affiliate channels
-
- bulletproof.1955
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- reg clebert
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- abyss
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Pete
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- joan vikeris
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- other people business
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- saundra wickman
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- joel smith-jones
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- mariano_barroso_OK
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- count mike
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Frank Mertzel
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Louis M. Simms
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Raymond Irya
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- geoff manreet
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Marsha Carrigan
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- J.J. O'Reilly
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Sophie Wardlow
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- fast2016
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- byron jones
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- C.T. Thomas
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Troy Wexler
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Trevor b.s. MacDonald
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- angela mackenna
- posted on December 17, 2023
-
- Wanda Klein
- posted on December 17, 2023
CommentPingback: LO MÁS LEÍDO DE LA SEMANA ☺ Diciembre 23, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
Pingback: LO MÁS VISTO ☺ Diciembre 22, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
Pingback: LO MÁS VISTO ☺ Diciembre 21, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
Pingback: LAS NOTAS MÁS LEÍDAS ☺ Diciembre 20, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
Pingback: LO MÁS LEÍDO ☺ Diciembre 19, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
El periodismo tiene un poder alucinante.
Pingback: LO MÁS VISTO ☺ Diciembre 18, 2023 – Prisionero en Argentina
I don’t feel as though advertising will be how media companies will make profits in the future. I guess it seems like advertising is how media companies make money at the moment. But I don’t think making money from advertising is the purpose for why the media companies were created and particularly their expansion to the giants we have today. I’m not being conspiratorial, or even utopian – I just feel social media companies haven’t tapped into their potential as yet.
I get paid over ??200$?? per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over ??10k?? a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
?? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> work.salary49.com
The need to have information before someone else, the need to be the first to bring up facts that others aren’t privy to, the anxiety of not know everything about every subject that other’s seem to know about. This continuous feedback loop, and hunger for information is putting pressure on journalist to feed the stories to us on demand.
Personally, I don’t watch TV
I prefer other sources.
The overwhelming share of coverage now is devoted stupid things, rumors, gossiping, not basic journalistic questions.
Sadly 70% of journalist out there sucks
At that moment, reading the news, broadcasters were saying person not persons.
I remember Tony Mendez was a genius. He died prematurely. But a true Fine Artist, became CIA and a genius! Mendez came up with this idea and was a 25-year CIA veteran with his wife Jonna Mendez, Disguise Chief CIA. A true dynamic duo. Tony was a document specialist and successfully ran many, many brilliant operations. And the wonderful Ken Taylor was an incredible Canadian Ambassador. That TV coverage was breath-taken.
Until very recently the local news filled programming slots for 90 minutes per weekday. Coupled with the national news on all three of the major networks, there 120 minutes a day on weekdays, with 60 minutes on Saturday and anywhere 90–120 minutes on Sundays, excluding political news programming such Meet the Press and Face the Nation. Anyway… in 1980 Ted Turner created CNN which launched 24-hour news coverage. It, along with its companion channel CNN2 (aka Headline News, now HLN) showed news programming all day, every day and it was a revolutionary tactic at the time. Even though NBC technically had a late night news program which featured journalist Linda Ellerbee and ABC was running what became Nightline which was concentrated in the ongoing Iranian hostage crisis, CNN was the first time that anyone tried to have a channel that aired only the news. As other answers have noted, the Second Gulf War in 1991 is what “made” CNN. the network scooped the Big Three and it provided insight into the conflict which the others did not. CNN began to grow larger and created multiple bureaus, and eventually, an international channel. Other networks noticed this and attempted their own programming and channels. The most successful of these were:
Additionally, the population demographics of the United States changed as did the television business. There were fewer children being born meaning that time could have been used to show programming for them could now be devoted to adult-oriented programming. Television stations also realized that they could make money by selling their airtime for the entire 24 hour day to either syndicate programming, or paid informercials. This meant that if people were working off shifts, were traveling or simply couldn’t sleep, they could turn on a television and see the latest “news” whenever they chose to.
While this doesn’t seem odd to the current generation (which is accustomed to Internet and news apps) 24 hour news was viewed as being revolutionary. Stories could be covered in detail (well…at least that was the idea). And news stories from outside of the United States or from distant areas within the country could be covered as they happened. The appeal of this was seen by all of the major players and it is now a “standard.”
Sooo…questioner, changes in the population demographics and the television industry realizing that it could earn a great of revenue from 24 hour programming are the among the primary reasons that all day news came into being.
The dedicated news channels are now the dominant modes of news dissemination: they feel authoritative because news is all that they do. They’ve discovered that there isn’t usually 24 hours worth of news*, and have to engage in all kind of non-news activities to keep viewers interested. So the notion of “24 hour news” is a very different kind of “news” than the 30 minute news reports.
The Gulf War was real 24-hour news content: there really could be a reason to watch it live. CNN was the first network to bring continuous live coverage directly from the war. People would tune in for hours at a time, rather than in 30 minute bursts.
Networks suck
We are being undone by our insatiable need to be the smartest most informed people in our social circle.
I wonder if anyone interviewed is still alive. i imagine that for many this might be one of the few recordings they have of relatives who were interviewed but since have passed away.
Reporters do not know how to report the news
I think back then there was more of a tendency to not get overly emotional in public. Nowadays people feel totally comfortable, even entitled, to lose their minds over even small things. Secondly, we as Americans have become so much more hostile towards opposing political groups. I wonder if today most people would express regret if the President belonging to an opposing political party were shot.
Los canales de tele estan manejados por empresarios oportunistas.
Great piece of history.
back then, newsrooms informed people. Now, they manipulate people.
I still remember Jackie O’s face when LBJ sworn…
It just amazes me how unemotional and surprisingly calm the people were in Dallas, New Orleans on that fateful day. Makes you think about how hated JFK must have been in the South at the time. I was only 3 years old when JFK was assassinated so I asked my parents later how they felt about the assassination. My mother coldly remarked that she wasn’t upset like some others living in the Northeast. She said “it wasn’t like he was a family member!.”I have to say I was embarrassed to hear my mother say something like that! But maybe if you had voted for Nixon in 1960 like my folks did, I guess you wouldn’t have cared so much but just move on with everyday your lives. Maybe a lot of Americans didn’t care much for JFK at the time and we have turned the assassination into a national tragedy and now think of him as a martyr. I would like people to reply to these comments and tell me how they felt at the time. Again I was only five years old. The only thing I was upset about was that there were no Saturday morning kid shows on TV! TV was showing news about JFK.
Same here. My uncle told me: “He (JFK) must have done something…”
For TV networks, horrible news are good news.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What a horrifying thing to live through.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Horrible injustice and a great loss for the world till this day
Imagine the people, along the parade route, standing next to the limo as it passed, that actually witnessed that last shot, that blew the president s head off, and the scars that must have left , as far as their memory of this horrible day, for the rest of their lives.
FOXnews= Yellow journalism!
Now we’ve gone full circle
This is what I try to tell people: there were no good old days. We were even more corrupt back then than we are now.
The most haunting news announcement in all of broadcast history.
My mom was just 12 when this happened. She’s told me the story of that day many times, and about the moment she found out when she was in school. The shock and amount of overwhelming grief was just unimaginable. In my own lifetime, 9/11 had a similar feeling of unimaginable shock, and I remember that whole day like it was yesterday myself.
Actually, 24 hour news cycle in the U.S. started with Ted Turner in the early 1980’s when he launched CNN (Cable News Network). (Prior to that, there actually were radio networks that gave top-of-the-hour newscasts at all hours.) His grand vision was to involve all TV stations around the country to share his news coverage and contribute their own stories — kind of like a giant news cooperative. It was a great idea that went sour within perhaps three years, because there was so much pushback from the big three TV networks. (Sort of like the way Tucker was pushed out the automobile business by the other big manufacturers.) Also, lining up advertisers was tough, because CNN’s content was “too newsy” and unexciting. (Just look at Fox today. They get lots of viewers, because they manage to stir things up. Viewers would rather be riled up than be informed.) Still, even with limited (and even banned) story input from around the country’s TV stations, CNN kept on. And other cable news outlets in the U.S. sprouted up and followed Turner’s basic 24 hour news concept. But their content has moved farther away from straight news and toward more commentary, just as CNN eventually did. It’s better for ratings. Not so good for hard information. Outside the U.S. there’s the BBC, Al Jazeera and others who carry lots of straightforward news around the clock (though with some repetition.) Ted Turner is kind of one my heroes. He deduced, correctly, that there’s enough news around the country (and around the world) to easily fill 24 hours every day, all year long. I first became acquainted with CNN in Germany when the American hostages were released from Tehran, Iran. Daniel Shore, formerly of CBS, was on the scene with CNN. Back then (in 1981) CNN was big stuff, and I had high hopes for it.
The entrepreneur always searches for change, responds to it, and exploits it as an opportunity.