re: #694 ObserverArt

That is not entirely correct.

TV back in the 50s, 60s and 70s didn’t have all the channels that came with cable TV in the late 70s.

The major networks were the only game in town so the only place for advertisers to get that big an audience. They were making money in their regular programming they could do what they wanted in their news divisions without suffering revenue loss.

That allowed the guys like Cronkite to be so against the war in Vietnam.

The news then was a lot more pointed, critical and editorial.

I can’t say since most of the time my family was too poor to own a television.

There were also lots of newspaper outlets. (It was the Washington Post that did the digging on an obscure hotel break-in and found much more. The same paper did that with Roy Moore, with help of local newspapers.)

Cable doesn’t matter here, since we don’t have it. Broadcast stations are all Sinclair outlets and our regional paper is conservative-aligned. Satellite is very expensive and not many people have it.

With virtually no Internet service here, we have a captive audience. My regional paper’s Website is still reporting as if there was no Democratic Primary yesterday, and GOP results was all print edition readers are seeing today as well.

We’re not alone in this: Lots of areas of the nation are just like this. It is difficult to get news when the available news outlets all report the same thing.