Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What's up with CNN.com

M

mac-er

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Apr 9, 2003
1,452
0
(See Attachment)
This CNN.com main article is "cute" and all, but what's up with it?
I've never seen a CNN.com main story presented like this on the front page. (Plus, its been up all night...I've never seen CNN go so long without changing the main story).

And how is this one story of one family news?
 

Attachments

  • cnn.com.jpg
    cnn.com.jpg
    121.7 KB · Views: 399
The Fox-ification of CNN. Some marketing guru probably suggested CNN go with more "human interest" stories. Bleh.
 
I wonder if all their main stories are going to be like this or if they are going back to the one block photograph with a block of text under it?

I hope so...this looks dumb.
 
Bla, Fox-ification?

I hate how news is more entertainment than news now. :(

WOW! Quaker Oats must've spent a FORTUNE on that advertising! (it's the first thing I noticed about the pic)
 
katie ta achoo said:
WOW! Quaker Oats must've spent a FORTUNE on that advertising! (it's the first thing I noticed about the pic)
Click to expand...

Did you know the Quaker Oats hunts down and kicks out excess cholesterol?
 
mac-er said:
Did you know the Quaker Oats hunts down and kicks out excess cholesterol?
Click to expand...


DUDE! No way!
CNN has excellent reporting if they are talk about how Mr. Oat is hunting and kicking! :)
 
dont watch tv, dont really like the news on tv, and now things are getting bad with the online news sources, maybe i will just have to stick with the paper in the end.
 
CNN < BBC

Which is exactly why I choose to check out the news at BBC or watch them on TV. I got so tired of those stupid one liners that would appear on the front page of CNN.com like "TERRIBLE DISASTER" and then the next day it was "RESCUE HEROES" and so on.. in HUGE fonts!! I mean.. it looked so cheesy. People know its a diaster and a tragedy.. but just the way they displayed it was annoying.

And the recent layout is messed up.. yes its a story ..but.. ahh well. MTV, CNN and FOX are 3 channels I guess I will never watch.
 
yeah i saw that, not amused... not like CNN is a shining beacon of journalistic integrity, but this does just smack of fox, so i doubt it'll be long now. At least the New York Times hasn't caved... yet... when that happens, i'll be lost.
 
That's a good story. Maybe it shouldn't be the main story, but it's quite a tale. I wonder if this will be CNN's permanent site design. It doesn't bother me as much as it seems to bother everyone else. It's not like their old design was some kind of pinnacle of excellence.
 
if anyone noticed, they changed it this morning, they photoshopped them into a new position. maybe they'll get a shockwave artist, animate the photos. i'd like to see them in a zany music video while i read my news...
 
And what about Nataly Holloway?

The girl missing in Aruba?

She is not important any more and the guy got free..

I think is discusting how obvious is the sensacionalism of CNN specially when during the day they changes the titles for the same articles.
 
Music_Producer said:
Which is exactly why I choose to check out the news at BBC or watch them on TV. I got so tired of those stupid one liners that would appear on the front page of CNN.com like "TERRIBLE DISASTER" and then the next day it was "RESCUE HEROES" and so on.. in HUGE fonts!! I mean.. it looked so cheesy. People know its a diaster and a tragedy.. but just the way they displayed it was annoying.

And the recent layout is messed up.. yes its a story ..but.. ahh well. MTV, CNN and FOX are 3 channels I guess I will never watch.
Click to expand...

BBC News might be more refined in their presentation, but is very slanted. 85-90% of their coverage is over US matters and that reporting is overwelmingly negative.

I prefer watching NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. Their coverage is much more thoughtful than FOX/CNN/MSNBC and they interview real experts, not talking heads.
 
I thought that was odd on CNN too. Entertainment as the driving force for news?? (Then again, my local news is called "Action News." Seriously. They don't promise the truth--just exciting "action." Even if they have to storm into local businesses and bully the owners to generate an appearance of strife.)

NewsHour is good:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
...although the government is apparently now monitoring them (and Frontline, NOW with Bill Moyers, and PBS in general) to promote content that "reflects the Republican mandate." Scary business--and an abuse of the federal funding that the CPB can hold over PBS's head.

BBC is also good for a change of perspective--and when stories emerge that look bad for the Bush administration, you can bet that the BBC will carry them the day the emerge, while CNN often sits on them for several days:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/

Other good news sources:

http://www.csmonitor.com/

http://www.alternet.org/
 
nagromme,

How can you suggest AlterNet as a decent news source? I just read that PBS article and then jumped to their homepage - just columns and columns of anti-Bush vitriol. They make Dan Rather sound Republican! CS Monitor is pretty good though.
 
Lacero said:
The Fox-ification of CNN. Some marketing guru probably suggested CNN go with more "human interest" stories. Bleh.
Click to expand...

Human interest? Of course; the last thing we should be concerned with. Woe is you.

Everyone here looking for dry, completely fact-based reporting should try The Economist (www.economist.com). If you can sit through two of those articles in one sitting, you are both

1. in possession of a truly superhuman attention span and

2. far more intelligent than I am.

You can't suck reporting dry of pictures, headlines, drop caps, and other attention holders and expect the public to remain interested. It's sad but true.

HTH.
 
Village said:
How can you suggest AlterNet as a decent news source? I just read that PBS article and then jumped to their homepage - just columns and columns of anti-Bush vitriol.
Click to expand...

They have about 50% editorials, which are NOT news--and which are bound to cause disagreement. In that, I agree with you.

But the other 50% covers concrete factual material--documented, not just speculation--which other news sources don't carry. So they are a VERY good news source as a supplement to learn things you won't learn elsewhere.

Just because something doesn't make Bush look good doesn't mean it isn't true. Likewise, just because the handful of big media corporations don't cover a story doesn't make it not true either.

Alternet's purpose is to fill in what other news organizations are NOT covering. Other news organizations have, as a general trend, been very soft on Bush--and far from unbiased--so of course there's no need for Alternet to just repeat that perspective. It would be redundant.

Disregard the editorials if you choose, but they are reporting on some events and facts that deserve some thought.

They don't update heavily, though--I check them once or twice a week.
 
Village said:
BBC News might be more refined in their presentation, but is very slanted. 85-90% of their coverage is over US matters and that reporting is overwelmingly negative.
Click to expand...


And there is much positive in how we have been conducting ourselves over the last 10+ years?
 
CNN is lost without Ted Turner. I don't know who is currently running Time Warner, but they are doing no favors for the news outlets they own. Time and CNN are just two examples of why news for profit alone is not a good business model.

As trends come and go, I hope that Fox and CNN suffer the same fate.

Myself, I like the BBC and Google news. The rest of what I read is through browsing various websites and blogs that browse the media for relevant news. I tend to stick to the well sourced stuff though.
 
Xtremehkr said:
CNN is lost without Ted Turner. I don't know who is currently running Time Warner, but they are doing no favors for the news outlets they own. Time and CNN are just two examples of why news for profit alone is not a good business model.

As trends come and go, I hope that Fox and CNN suffer the same fate.

Myself, I like the BBC and Google news. The rest of what I read is through browsing various websites and blogs that browse the media for relevant news. I tend to stick to the well sourced stuff though.
Click to expand...

Use to be different when the airwaves belonged to the people, not the corporations that could buy off the administration and the FCC.
 
Anyone remember Dateline and 48 Hours? They used to do really good news reporting, but lately, they've been focussing on murder mysteries and other crap like that. And I hate the way they talk, all those BS reporters like Stone Phillips. He sold his soul to the Corporation.
 
Chip NoVaMac said:
Use to be different when the airwaves belonged to the people, not the corporations that could buy off the administration and the FCC.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but the FCC now takes the advice of fundamentalist Christians. Sure, Fundamentalist Christians are entitled to their view, but I don't understand why they don't understand that their POV is in the minority.

Considering how the free market works, if the fundamentalist view was the most popular, Howard Stern would have been a miserable failure. I understand that not everyone is a Howard Stern fan, but there are other choices available on the dial.

The difference in ideology comes down to offering a choice. You can choose to listen to Imus or you can choose to listen to Stern, or whomever else appeals to you, in a market that is representative of all consumers in the marketplace.

In the current system though, one ideology feels it has the right to dictate what everyone should have the right to listen to. Which is forcing a lot of other voices off of the public airwaves, negating the claim that we have a society where everyone is free to have a voice.

You're right, but it may take the complete negation of alternatives for people to realize what is happening to a free society. Which is kinda sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back