Panelization of news, a new low?

Within minutes of the announcement that President Trump had agreed to meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, the cable news networks had their panels of talking heads assembled and ready, like SWAT teams preparing to storm a barricaded house.

On CNN, Erin Burnett queried the network’s White House and foreign affairs correspondents as well as a series of non-journalists: a former Army general, a Korea specialist, and a counterterrorism analyst. The latter, Philip Mudd, bluntly voiced his doubts. “It doesn’t sound to me like de-nuke,” he said. “It sounds to me like freeze. And number two, what happens if [Trump] fails?”

MSNBC’s “Hardball” also mixed reporters and non-reporters, including a former Obama Defense Department official and a think-tank guy who specializes in nuclear weapons. Few facts were available, but host Chris Matthews demanded to know where the summit would be held. “I wish I could give you more information on that, Chris,” said reporter Hallie Jackson.

Fox News went straight to a Texas congressman, a former military officer running for Congress and an editorial writer from the conservative Washington Examiner. The congressman, Republican Will Hurd, offered that “this is a positive development, but we have to continue to move our forces to be prepared for a ground war.”

Once again, it was time for the panelization of breaking news.

From early in its history, cable news found the panel format — featuring people from different perspectives and disciplines — to be a lively (and cost-efficient) way to deliver opinions on current events. The discussions can be enervating, enlightening or infuriating, depending on who is on which side of the food fight.

But, as the Korean news demonstrated, it’s often hard to tell the reporters from the opinion slingers, especially when the panels bleed into the delivery of the news itself.

News reporters bristle when critics tar them as liberal or conservative. They’re quick to insist that they have nothing to do with the opinion side of their organizations. (“We serve different masters,” Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith told Time magazine this month. “We work for different reporting chains, we have different rules.”)

And yet panels with multiple talking heads arguably make the situation more fraught for them by lumping them with former politicians, think-tank scholars and opinionated party hacks — a blending of news reporting and commentary that’s bound to leave some viewers confused

confuzzled dude wrote:

Within minutes of the announcement that President Trump had agreed to meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, the cable news networks had their panels of talking heads assembled and ready, like SWAT teams preparing to storm a barricaded house.

On CNN, Erin Burnett queried the network’s White House and foreign affairs correspondents as well as a series of non-journalists: a former Army general, a Korea specialist, and a counterterrorism analyst. The latter, Philip Mudd, bluntly voiced his doubts. “It doesn’t sound to me like de-nuke,” he said. “It sounds to me like freeze. And number two, what happens if [Trump] fails?”

MSNBC’s “Hardball” also mixed reporters and non-reporters, including a former Obama Defense Department official and a think-tank guy who specializes in nuclear weapons. Few facts were available, but host Chris Matthews demanded to know where the summit would be held. “I wish I could give you more information on that, Chris,” said reporter Hallie Jackson.

Fox News went straight to a Texas congressman, a former military officer running for Congress and an editorial writer from the conservative Washington Examiner. The congressman, Republican Will Hurd, offered that “this is a positive development, but we have to continue to move our forces to be prepared for a ground war.”

Once again, it was time for the panelization of breaking news.

From early in its history, cable news found the panel format — featuring people from different perspectives and disciplines — to be a lively (and cost-efficient) way to deliver opinions on current events. The discussions can be enervating, enlightening or infuriating, depending on who is on which side of the food fight.

But, as the Korean news demonstrated, it’s often hard to tell the reporters from the opinion slingers, especially when the panels bleed into the delivery of the news itself.

News reporters bristle when critics tar them as liberal or conservative. They’re quick to insist that they have nothing to do with the opinion side of their organizations. (“We serve different masters,” Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith told Time magazine this month. “We work for different reporting chains, we have different rules.”)

And yet panels with multiple talking heads arguably make the situation more fraught for them by lumping them with former politicians, think-tank scholars and opinionated party hacks — a blending of news reporting and commentary that’s bound to leave some viewers confused

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-breaking-news-got-panelized-on-cable-journalists-and-pundits-increasingly-share-space/2018/03/20/b5fc36d8-2250-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fcbae6b1c4e0

American (TV) journalism have always been about self-aggrandizement and twisting the truth to fit their narrative than being objective, has always been amateurish compared to, say, BBC but was bearable; now with these pundit-panels opining nonsense I can't stand CNN for more than 5 minutes.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:

confuzzled dude wrote:

Within minutes of the announcement that President Trump had agreed to meet North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, the cable news networks had their panels of talking heads assembled and ready, like SWAT teams preparing to storm a barricaded house.

On CNN, Erin Burnett queried the network’s White House and foreign affairs correspondents as well as a series of non-journalists: a former Army general, a Korea specialist, and a counterterrorism analyst. The latter, Philip Mudd, bluntly voiced his doubts. “It doesn’t sound to me like de-nuke,” he said. “It sounds to me like freeze. And number two, what happens if [Trump] fails?”

MSNBC’s “Hardball” also mixed reporters and non-reporters, including a former Obama Defense Department official and a think-tank guy who specializes in nuclear weapons. Few facts were available, but host Chris Matthews demanded to know where the summit would be held. “I wish I could give you more information on that, Chris,” said reporter Hallie Jackson.

Fox News went straight to a Texas congressman, a former military officer running for Congress and an editorial writer from the conservative Washington Examiner. The congressman, Republican Will Hurd, offered that “this is a positive development, but we have to continue to move our forces to be prepared for a ground war.”

Once again, it was time for the panelization of breaking news.

From early in its history, cable news found the panel format — featuring people from different perspectives and disciplines — to be a lively (and cost-efficient) way to deliver opinions on current events. The discussions can be enervating, enlightening or infuriating, depending on who is on which side of the food fight.

But, as the Korean news demonstrated, it’s often hard to tell the reporters from the opinion slingers, especially when the panels bleed into the delivery of the news itself.

News reporters bristle when critics tar them as liberal or conservative. They’re quick to insist that they have nothing to do with the opinion side of their organizations. (“We serve different masters,” Fox News anchorman Shepard Smith told Time magazine this month. “We work for different reporting chains, we have different rules.”)

And yet panels with multiple talking heads arguably make the situation more fraught for them by lumping them with former politicians, think-tank scholars and opinionated party hacks — a blending of news reporting and commentary that’s bound to leave some viewers confused

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-breaking-news-got-panelized-on-cable-journalists-and-pundits-increasingly-share-space/2018/03/20/b5fc36d8-2250-11e8-badd-7c9f29a55815_story.html?utm_term=.fcbae6b1c4e0

American (TV) journalism have always been about self-aggrandizement and twisting the truth to fit their narrative than being objective, has always been amateurish compared to, say, BBC but was bearable; now with these pundit-panels opining nonsense I can't stand CNN for more than 5 minutes.

Watch public television. The only thing worth watching.