Over the years the "CBS Evening News" has changed many anchors, and in my opinion got less and less. The glory days were with Walter Cronkite when he ran the stories the way he wanted he always informed America, even though he's now a committed liberal. Then enter Dan Rather who had a passion for news and he done it with an eager commitment and excitement. As evidenced over the years by his statement to President Nixon at a White House press conference during the Watergate scandal, it was "What are you trying to run from"!, and included was his pounding of president George Bush in an interview. Finally his liberal leaning done him in with the national guard story in 2004, when his info about George W. Bush was incorrect. Now enter the elegant, sweet, and attractive Katie Couric the new hope for CBS. Katie was a real gem in morning news, but has struggled since coming to nights because the news requires a more somber and serious take. The program has been hurt by to many segments on medical issues, race, and other crazy issues. As the night news needs a more serious and aggressive take, and Katie in my opinion is a liberal thinker that also has hurt her. Really the only good news people on CBS are Mike Wallace for his tough interviewing, and Andy Rooney for his educational and angry look at the establishment in politics and society. So in the evening change the channel and don't have your eye on CBS.
3 Reviews
evening news
lfloeber10 January 2007
there is often subtle and/or blatant undermining of decisions or comments made about the war, bush, republican..... this is not helpful to American objectives. this kind of war/bush bashing done by most media is actually causing deaths in iraq and extending the war. as Americans, the management of so called news programs should recognize their responsibility to report, period. negative facial expression, body English, selected sound bites, negative footage, selection of negative soldier picture and comments, negative congressmen.... This is detrimental to America. since we know most Americans do not take upon themselves to form their personal opinion, you are inciting the public against America's leaders and our best interest; dividing the country. the repercussions are very serious.
That hardy fair and balanced observation.
teejaysplace24 April 2007
On the contrary, the media has a responsibility to report the truest nature of the issue at hand. Any war results in hardship for soldiers on both sides of the field. When atrocities are committed, even by your own countrymen, censoring these images violates the essence of your journalistic integrity. It seems, therefore, you would prefer the types of newscasts allowed in Communist countries, where only those events that are politically expedient to the government are allowed to be broadcast. Showing the American people - or any people - your sanitized, measured, rah-rah version of things simply to increase public approval only serves to undermine the 1st amendment and destroy our fundamental right to formulate an informed opinion on the policies of our government.
Newscasters are human beings, not mindless cyborgs, and as such they will no doubt have emotional reactions to the site of such terrible carnage. It seems you would like them to strike every trace of emotion from their constitutions while reporting the conditions in Iraq; however, I doubt you could made the same argument about the myriad of newscasters who got chocked up on the morning of September 11th.
No matter which sound bites are chosen, they will have been "selected" by someone. No matter what footage is broadcast, it is going to be footage of a combat zone. When American leaders act in ways that are abhorrent, it is not the responsibility of the media to make them look majestic. It strikes me that your problem is not with the so-called accuracies of reporting, but that that reporting conflicts with your personally held opinions. You are therefore accusing the news media of everything from inappropriate head-tilting to baiting congressional leaders solely to reinforce your feelings on the current political situation, all without any basis of fact or integrity.
Newscasters are human beings, not mindless cyborgs, and as such they will no doubt have emotional reactions to the site of such terrible carnage. It seems you would like them to strike every trace of emotion from their constitutions while reporting the conditions in Iraq; however, I doubt you could made the same argument about the myriad of newscasters who got chocked up on the morning of September 11th.
No matter which sound bites are chosen, they will have been "selected" by someone. No matter what footage is broadcast, it is going to be footage of a combat zone. When American leaders act in ways that are abhorrent, it is not the responsibility of the media to make them look majestic. It strikes me that your problem is not with the so-called accuracies of reporting, but that that reporting conflicts with your personally held opinions. You are therefore accusing the news media of everything from inappropriate head-tilting to baiting congressional leaders solely to reinforce your feelings on the current political situation, all without any basis of fact or integrity.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
