…we knew what was the actual news story, and what was his personal opinion. To say otherwise, is essentially to assume that the people who read the blog are utterly incompetent at telling the difference between facts and opinion…

Let’s ask Brittney about this one.

Ahh, the full quote is even funnier.

To say otherwise, is essentially to assume that the people who read the blog are utterly incompetent at telling the difference between facts and opinion; which may be true of many Fox News watchers or Phil Valentine listeners, but I’m not sure the same holds up when it comes to those who read blogs.

Bwahahaha! RIGHT! Liberal bloggers and liberal blog readers are so much smarter than everyone else, despite the fact that they can’t detect sarcasm.

Bwahahaha! RIGHT! Liberal bloggers and liberal blog readers are so much smarter than everyone else, despite the fact that they can’t detect sarcasm.

You’re saying that all conservative blog readers are too stupid to know that Fox News is pure bullshit propaganda? I don’t believe that.
.

No, Braisted is at his blog. I personally think all news is pure bullshit propaganda.

I don’t know Ms. Hammer, who is the head editor at Townhall seems very intelligent, but seems to not have a problem with the utter lack of veracity of Fox’s claims. She never ever calls Billy O on his bias, name calling, lack of substance, yelling, and general Springer-esque tactics. She just plays along. One wonders when she voices her independence. So no, Fox gets pretty much a blank check on the right.

Nearly everything I posted at NiT had links to sources. I sometimes made accusations of hypocrisy but not without just cause supported by facts and stats. Look at the complaints in comments from conservatives. Almost none dealt with the substance of the post, just attack the messenger, but that’s beside tha point. Commentary can be sharp and opinionated as long as it’s backed up. Otherwise what we have is redundant news and marshmallow roasting. Blogging should stimulate debate, not hate.

You people just don’t get it.

“Linking to a source” doesn’t mean the source itself isn’t biased. You can’t seem to distinguish “hard news reporting” which should be objective and letting the reader decide with “opinion journalism”.

Think Progress is a left wing site. Raw Story is a left wing site. National Review is a conservative website as is the American Spectator. When you read those sites you know a slant is being entered and you are not receiving news from an unbiased source.

The difference is while liberals complain about Fox being biased, conservatives can easily complain about everybody else from CBS to CNN to the New York Times.

Gwen Kinsey to date is showing that she is wanting Channel 2 to move in the direction of straight news reporting.

TN Native, if that’s the case, then she’s a damn fool. There’s no such thing as straight news reporting. Everything has biases built into it. If a news station is faced with one camera crew and two breaking stories–say a country star is involved in a hit and run in front of the Hall of Fame and a kid is shot in her classroom–which one they choose to call “news” and send a camera crew to is the result of bias.

People are people. Even the people who deliver the news. Far better that they’re upfront with their biases so that folks can judge for themselves how much weight to give their presentations than to pretend to be objective, which is impossible.

The more I learn about the blogging business, the more surpised I am at what “works” (from a business persepective), and what does not.

I’ll be quite interestd in seeing what comes of this. Certainly, I wouldn’t write it off immediately.

I’ll just ask you this, Slarti: do you watch more WKRN news now than you did a year ago?

I don’t.

Neither do I.

I do not.

One factor that cannot be discounted, though: I watch Channel 5 most of the time because the HDTV is just darn pleasing to the eye.

That being said, earlier this year, when Brittney had many of us feeling like we had a stake in the station, I watched Channel 2 more than I ever had. (Being a lifetime Nashvillian, WSMV is my “default” station.)

So, I get what you’re saying. The very last thing WKRN needs is to become bland and disengage from the community. I don’t think contoversy for its own sake is any better (after a while, it gets exhausting), but it seems like there’s a fine line that could be had. I though Brittney had it down pat.

“That being said, earlier this year, when Brittney had many of us feeling like we had a stake in the station, I watched Channel 2 more than I ever had. (Being a lifetime Nashvillian, WSMV is my “default” station.)”

Ditto!

[…] did. There is a conversation over at Music City Bloggers right now about Gwen Kinsey’s statements to Liz Garrigan at the Nashville Scene. There are […]

This is a new approach for WKRN. I want it to work, in no small part because it can be a different approach and it just might work. I believe the greatest risk is that the News2 Extra blog will fall into the same category as the comment feature at the online Tennessean. Story goes up, people add comments, story gets buried, end of discussion…at least with a blog, there are better distribution options.

I still watch News2… but switch to 4 or 5 as soon a Wheel comes on.

I still watch News2… but switch to 4 or 5 as soon a Wheel comes on.

I do, too. It’ annoys me. I go straight over to NewsChannel 5 at 6:30. However, did you know that Wheel of Fortune is WKRN’s highest rated program?

That’s why they won’t preempt it for anything.

That being said, earlier this year, when Brittney had many of us feeling like we had a stake in the station, I watched Channel 2 more than I ever had. (Being a lifetime Nashvillian, WSMV is my “default” station.)

Yep, so much so that I consistently forget the V in WSM.

If the main purpose of having NIT was to expand the reach of WKRN in to more homes, it definitely succeeded. But it did not improve the overall ratings for the station. At the end of the day, the station manager has to improve ratings so they can get more advertising dollars just like any other business. It isn’t a charity.

I am disappointed that NIT did not equate in to higher ratings for WKRN, but I’m not sure how a “new direction” with the blog is really going to change the facts on the ground. I don’t see the ratings for WKRN changing regardless of whether NIT is about personal blogging or straight news.

Brittney did both adequately, and is largely responsible for its success. But it didn’t make WKRN any more successful. If this proves anything it proves that the Nashville blogosphere isn’t influential enough yet to affect ratings for a TV station, nothing more nothing less.

They could turn NIT in to a forum for liberal hacks or marshmallow roasting, or make it a blog version of the evening news. Either way I predict that it won’t be the factor that improves WKRN’s ratings.