Jump to content


Photo

CNN vs Other Networks


64 replies to this topic

#61 Leeroy

Leeroy

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2771 posts

Posted 03 June 2011 - 10:14 AM

CNNI were quite slow going to Mladic appearing in court at The Hague. After about 10 minutes of WBT looking like it was continuing as normal, I flicked back to AJE who had been covering proceedings just a minute or two after the top of the hour. CNNI must have went to the court at least 10 minutes after AJE and BBCWN started.

#62 Hamil

Hamil

    CNN V.J.

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 418 posts

Posted 08 June 2011 - 02:30 AM

It's probably on cost-cutting, but I really have a dislike for the way CNNI relies so much on their streambox for live hits, compared to BBC and AJE. You can see all 3 networks reporting live from a location and you're almost guaranteed that CNNI will be using broadband while the other 2 are using their satellite. If/when CNNI ever goes HD, what a waste it'll be if they continue to choose broadband over satellite links. I also find it frustrating that you're likely to see at least 1 broadband link fail or have to be aborted because the picture breaks up each show. BTW, I'm not complaining about remote locations where it could be quite difficult to get a satellite signal out.

#63 newser

newser

    CNN Correspondent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2147 posts

Posted 08 June 2011 - 03:48 AM

Couldn't agree more, Hamil, it was quite annoying seeing grainy low res pictures of Chilean miners being saved or tens of thousands of Egyptians trying to overthrow their dictator on Tahrir Square (the list could go on and on). On the one hand, I understand CNN, cause it's much cheaper to have just one backpack of equipment instead of a rented satellite truck. But on the other hand, this is television and television is mostly about pictures, so it shouldn't be acceptable, especially for an organization like CNN, to just give up on it.

It's bizarre that many cell phone videos from Syria have a higher bitrate than CNN's live reports from an almost perfectly calm and peaceful Beirut, which in no case could be called a remote or out-of-reach location. In fact, pretty much all of these broadband streams are going via broadband satellite anyways, so there shouldn't be excuse for not providing the best (full frame) picture quality from any location (excluding, of course, extreme security conditions on locations such as Misrata in Libya).

If the BBC (as a much bigger organization whose finances are always closely watched cause it's the tax payers' money) can afford to broadcast live reports via traditional satellite, CNN (as an allegedly profitable division of a huge media corporation) should be able to do the same.

#64 Xabat

Xabat

    CNN Intern

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 15 January 2012 - 11:49 AM

The quote below is something I found in a totally unrelated opinion piece I was reading, but I wanted to post it here to see if anyone had a link to the actual study or report that this guy is quoting. It sounds like it would be interesting reading for me.

Get news from Al Jazeera: Too many of us get our news from sources that think like us. A 2009 study found that viewers of Al Jazeera English were more open-minded than people who got their news from CNN International and BBC World.


Quoted from: http://www.cdispatch...2#ixzz1jWiQNkRT

#65 Charles

Charles

    CNN Anchor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4087 posts

Posted 15 January 2012 - 04:16 PM

^^^

I saw that article a few days ago from the Daily Beast:

http://www.thedailyb...012.item-4.html

It's a somewhat entertaining read. Not all of their ideas are the best, but I think it's not a bad idea to make smartness a New Year's resolution.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users