Dan Rather has a long history of criticizing the media and his recent comments prove that he's not slowing down. In a recent interview with Joe Scarborough, Rather stated that the news was being dumbed down and tarted up with the likes of Katie Courtic running the show and favoring celebrity stories over more critical stories-such as the war. CBS exec Les Moonves has gone on the offensive, stating that Rather's comments were sexist.

1.)Overall, are we seeing a "dumbing down and tarting up" effect?

2)Will "hard news" last, or will the "dumbed down" news replace it as the younger, dumber people become more influential or sizable in number?

3.)In terms of covering the news, who did a better job and why, Dan Rather or Katie Couric?

4.)Is Rather's comments the product of the "old boys (news) network" sexist attitudes?

5.)Is sexism a fair argumetn in this case?, why or why not?

1.)Overall, are we seeing a "dumbing down and tarting up" effect?
Yes. Coverage of entertainment "stories" (i.e. who's voted off Survivor, or American Idol), along with the inane coverage of Paris Hilton are examples of the trend.

2)Will "hard news" last, or will the "dumbed down" news replace it as the younger, dumber people become more influential or sizable in number?
"Hard news" is a more specialized product that will last, but not necessarily at 6pm on broadcast networks. Its not so much a question of demographics, as a question of changing markets and media. If you want "hard news", you just have to look for it.

3.)In terms of covering the news, who did a better job and why, Dan Rather or Katie Couric?
I don't watch Katie, didn't watch Dan much either, so I can't answer this.

4.)Is Rather's comments the product of the "old boys (news) network" sexist attitudes?
I don't think so, although a fair argument can be made that its a product of observing differences in the content now versus way back when. "Old boy" yes, "old boy's network", don't think so...

5.)Is sexism a fair argumetn in this case?, why or why not?
No, because the other networks are doing the same thing, albeit to a lesser extent.

1.)Overall, are we seeing a "dumbing down and tarting up" effect?

I don't necessarily see these two phrases as related. I would say that television and radio news (not to be confused with talk and pundit shows) are certainly experiencing a dumbing down. I think some print and some electronic media still offer intelligent dissemination of current events.

Dumbing down, however, does not automatically lead to 'tarting up'. I think the phrase 'tarting up' implies that intelligent news has been swapped for news regarding loose women, which is a non-sequitor at best, sexist at worst. The dumbing down of the news is better exemplified by cable TV news channels reporting more 'fark' style stories. Almost every cable news outlet now has an 'odd news' section that reports useless crap stories like water-skiing squirrels and funny high school pranks. Radio news has been reduced to one-liners and sound bites. The most egregious example is Fox News Radio's recent addition of the 'Soundtrack of Your Life' programming, which is essentially them playing cereal commercials from the 1960's or sitcom theme songs during the top and bottom of the hour news for syndicated radio programming. While I love a good old audio broadcast, such frivolous material has no place in the mere five minutes Fox News Radio has to broadcast actual news.

2)Will "hard news" last, or will the "dumbed down" news replace it as the younger, dumber people become more influential or sizable in number?

A bit ageist, aren't ya, nebraska? You kids get off my lawn!

I think there will always exist an elite class of hard news junkies (like we here at ), but as Neal Postman wrote and Roger Waters sang we are amusing ourselves to death. This has been going on in the U.S. since at least after WWI. The dumbing down is not a new phenomena. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

It's hard for intelligent people like ourselves to understand why so many more people prefer voting for the next American Idol over the next American President or why the daily antics of the Hollywood bimbo of the week is more interesting than the genocide in Darfur. There are just more outlets for news, so it seems more prevalent.

3.)In terms of covering the news, who did a better job and why, Dan Rather or Katie Couric?

Can't say I've ever watched either. I think the evening news is a dying animal. Those of us who do enjoy intelligent news tend to gravitate to print and electronic media. These media provide opportunities for more in depth analysis. The nature and structure of television news does not allow for this. In fact, the only television news I regularly watch is in the morning before work. Up until recently, I watched CNN's O'Brien & O'Brien, but CNN canned that show for the more fluffy, Fox & Friends imitation with Keiran Chetry and some dude in a stuffed suit, who is so dull, I can't be bothered to learn his name. Lately, I've grown to like MSNBC's Morning Joe (where I did hear Rather deliver the comments that led to this topic). MSNBC has flopped around trying to find good programming in the morning to replace Imus and I think they really have something with Joe Scarborough. He has a good crew around him and he really hates the fluff news. In fact, he seems a bit crabby in the morning, which is exactly what I want. I don't want the doey-eyed good-morning-america-fox-and-friends-today-show junk other channels offer. I digress...

4.)Is Rather's comments the product of the "old boys (news) network" sexist attitudes?

I honestly have no idea what Rather meant. The entire interview was a bit rambling and he seemed to have a chip on his shoulder regarding all news, not necessarily Couric specifically. Rather certainly falls into the good old boys school of news, but at the same time he exemplifies the dumbing down. The man resigned on the tail of a news scandal in which he was directly involved, which would have never happened had he done the work a news reporter is supposed to do. Instead he took the lazy route, disseminated a false, unsubstantiated story, which is exactly the problem with much of our television news today and the very thing Dan Rather was complaining about.

5.)Is sexism a fair argument in this case?, why or why not?

Again, having never watched Couric, I can only speculate, but I would say it's not intentionally sexist, but I can see how some would take it that way. Why not just leave the complaint at 'dumbing down' - which has a lot of truth to it. Like I said earlier, dumbing down leading to tarting up is a non-sequitor. The comment seems like the grumblings of a jaded newscaster who is no longer in the spotlight trying to make one last effort for an extra 15 minutes.

1. Without a doubt we are seeing the news dumbed down and it's no accident. The reasons why could merit an entire separate thread. I would offer up the morbid fascination over the death of Anna Nicole Smith, the breathless coverage over Paris Hilton going to jail and the obsessive theorizing over what happened to Natalee Holloway. If you want to get the attention of the TV news it helps to be pretty, blonde and White.

As far the "tarting up" of the news, I haven't noticed a sudden increase of cleveage, low-cut dresses and "come-hither" looks by pouty-lipped anchorwomen. There will always be pretty people instead of plain or ugly people delivering the news. The last straw will come win the networks start hiring actors or models to read the teleprompters.

2. My favorite news program is FRONTLINE on PBS which hasn't fallen into the celebrity worship trap and softball, touchy-feely stories that newsmagzines "60 Minutes," "20/20" and "Dateline NBC" feast upon. I don't think "hard news" will ever go away. It will just be even harder to find among all the static.

3. It's a push. I never thought Rather measured up to Walter Cronkite and I preferred Peter Jennings to him in head-to-head competition. He permitted a sloppy bit of reporting and lazy fact-checking to tarnish his entire career. Rather's fall from grace was sudden, but largely based on his own hubris. Katie Couric was a lightweight back on the TODAY show when she and Bryant Gumbel would snap on each other. She lacks the necessary gravitas for the job and her failure to raise the fortunes of the CBS Evening News doesn't surprise me at all. As I've said before, ballerinas shouldn't try to be weightlifters.

4. & 5. Dan Rather is a bitter man. Bitter over his fall from grace. Bitter over how he exited CBS. Bitter over being replaced by someone he doesn't respect like Couric. If his remarks aren't an example of "old boy network" sexism, what is?

Dumbing down? Well, the way I see it, and pardon my cynicism, is that the news is dumbed down because that is the level the American public wants. We at AD are not average Americans [it's okay we can say it, we're better people than "them" ], we want real news, that is substantive and hard hitting...Most Americans don't. The American Idol watching, celebrity stalking public want to hear about what designer ankle bracelet Paris is currently wearing, how many times Mary Kate Olsen has eaten in the last three days [twice, according to tonight's Inside Edition ] and who Anna Nicole's baby daddy is. The "news" media is simply reflecting the market's demands. If they weren't, they wouldn't be making so much money.
Hard news will always have a place in this country. It is needed, it will never go out of style nor will it dissapear all together. With that said, I do believe that as long as people continue to care about trivial non-stories, the news media will continue covering them...and why wouldn't they, they are business' with the goal of making money.
I don't watch Kate and Dan was on his way out by the time I began caring about current events. Besides, I get my news from America's Debate, a much more reliable source than either of those two hacks.
Doubtful, what he said was accurate, that's all that needs to be understood.
No, it diverts the argument away from the quality of news being broadcasted...and that is exactly what it was intended to do.

CP

Same coin, different sides perhaps? You have "dumb" stories that are more *Personal* in nature, the schmaltzy side-talk between the news anchors. It's the whole "Idol" and "Survivor" coverage, not to mention stories about people miraculously surviing some ordeal, or of some old person jumping in a lake to save a drowing dog. . The "tarting up" occurs with stories about Paris, Lindsay, and Brittany. Hasn't news been swapped for those women of ill repute? I hate to use other terms for them, but who hasn't seen one of them swing an umbrella at K-FED's car or pictures of them drunk and getting out of a car? That's the kind of thing that ConservPat thinks is real news, but the rest of us........







Guilty as charged. I know, I should be a Libertarian like Mike and as long as other people don't commit a crime against me, then........

1.)Overall, are we seeing a "dumbing down and tarting up" effect?

2)Will "hard news" last, or will the "dumbed down" news replace it as the younger, dumber people become more influential or sizable in number?

3.)In terms of covering the news, who did a better job and why, Dan Rather or Katie Couric?

4.)Is Rather's comments the product of the "old boys (news) network" sexist attitudes?

5.)Is sexism a fair argumetn in this case?, why or why not?

I don't see Couric as a tart, although I don't see her very much. I see a local co-anchor woman more often who is attractive but not pretty in the usual context (pouty-lipped, stacked, gams to die for, etc.). She is smart and beautiful. Then her male sidekick is very much a nerd. The combination works KRDO 13, Colorado Springs, Zack & Kelly for the morning news.

They report the news deadpan mostly, but I get the sense of horror and humor, when appropriate, just under the surface. This is what keeps me watching, plus some good-natured and poignant banter that goes on. Hope the station keeps this team and realizes the gems it has.

Contrasting this with other local news stations, the faces are all People magazine covers. I have a hard time taking them seriously.

Couric I can take seriously. She isn't all that great looking, and she also has an air about her that she has walked the walk. Rather on the other hand seems a bit flat and phony. I'd rather not partake.

The evening news is moot to me. Morning is the time for news. I don't want a dose of reality depression in the evening as I'm trying to wind down. Nope, that's the time to recap what has actually happened in life, with the assumption that the world is pretty much as screwed up as it has always been. Yesterday I took the afternoon off, played music in the mountains, and behold, two church ladies came up from nowhere to convert me. Ha, fat chance. Man, were they ever sorry that they pushed themselves into a shaman's prayer circle.

That was news to share at night. The other crap is just keeping tabs on, uh, the state of the state of crap. I'm not sure why. Can't do anything about it. Can't figure a lot of it out. Don't care if the network news lives or dies, or really anything about the rich and famous. Can't do anything about them; can't figure a lot of them out. They don't come into the prayer circle, but a lot of the world's news does. And a couple of church ladies.

They were beautiful but not that smart. Never heard of C. S. Lewis. Oh well, I tried to commune and didn't get angry. But what the heck were they doing out there in the middle of nowhere?

There's some sort of connection here. Maybe it's existential, the utter absurdity of it all. Show leg, get People magazine covers, sell crap. Seek peace and understanding, find church ladies. Yeah, that's it. It couldn't be stranger on drugs.

It's not that the news is dumbing down. The entire world is on drugs, the drugs of misunderstanding, no understanding, lack of perspective, inappropriate behavior, wrong moves, rationalizations, oversimplifications, isms of this and that and ism-isms, living in cesspools and insisting it don't stink. We can't even throw the TV out the window and holler that we're not going to take it anymore. The flat panels cost too much!

There was the mountain, the burn area, the flowers, the impossibly gorgeous sky, the music, the church ladies.

That was good. Made me think. Made them leave, like in a hurry to save some other soul. That was good. The evening news sucks. CNN sucks. Fox sucks. One great big sucking news world, and yep, they keep on buying crap. Hummers and hooters, shooters and tooters, gams and scams, it don't mean squat.

But it does. Every little thing does, whether we like it or not. So I guess that's why I keep coming back.

Overall, are we seeing a "dumbing down and tarting up" effect?

I hold the answer to this question to be self-evident.

Will "hard news" last, or will the "dumbed down" news replace it as the younger, dumber people become more influential or sizable in number?

Hard news will last, but it's becoming increasingly difficult to find. If we exclude books (I can decribe these objects elsewhere for those who may not have encountered them), which can provide some retrospective hard news, the internet has become the only resource for those interested in real news of any description. Dumber people have always been sizable in number, regardless of age, but they have become increasingly influential. Mike Judge's Idiocracy (originally titled The United States of Uhh-merica) may not have been a brilliant movie, but it was shatteringly prescient. We are becoming a nation of dunces and - Wait, what am I saying? We are a nation of dunces. And the "lunatics running the asylum" metaphor is more apt than ever - though it should probably be adapted slightly: the most mentally challenged members of the class are running Special Ed.

In terms of covering the news, who did a better job and why, Dan Rather or Katie Couric?

I have no idea. I only ever came across Rather by accident once or twice and have never seen Couric. I haven't watched a network news broadcast in more than a decade.

Are Rather's comments the product of the "old boys (news) network" sexist attitudes?

Good God, no.

Is sexism a fair argument in this case?

No.

Why or why not?

Uh, because there was nothing really sexist about his comments? "Tarting something up" is a primarily British expression, which basically means making something splashy or showy - the way some women of easy virtue will overdo the makeup. Saying that someone's house is "all tarted up for Christmas" does not imply that their house is showing too much cleavage. Unfortunately, the number of people in America that would be familiar with idioms from other countries is roughly equivalent to the number of people in America that could name the capital of Kenya - and that includes news anchors of all genders. Dan Rather severely miscalculated by using an expression that our dumbed down population, our dumbed down media, and our dumbed down network heads would never have encountered - thanks, in large part, to their abject absence of curiosity.

Dan Rather was saying nothing about actual "tarts" like Paris Hilton - or about female anchors like Couric. Okay, the expression itself may be inherently sexist, implying that only female prostitutes are prone to wearing excessive eye shadow and lip gloss, but construing sexism in relation to Couric or anyone else is an impossible stretch. Les Moonves is a moron (he canceled Judging Amy, Joan of Arcadia, and Reba, I guess to show his support for programs with strong central female characters, and ended the eighteen-year franchise of Star Trek). If he's capable of forming coherent thoughts at all, he knows Rather is right and can't, obviously, come up with any class of reasonable defense, so he goes on the attack.

The fact that we're having such a debate at all is ample evidence of how dumbed down we've become. The medium of television, by its very nature, is primarily responsible. The fact that its minimal content has increasingly been geared toward the lowest possible denominator, has only hastened our plummet into single-digit IQ numbers.



The capital of Kenya, by the way, is Nairobi.