So your answer to the question is, in fact, “No, I have never been on the air for an extended period of time in front of a national audience in a crisis situation”? OK. That’s what I wanted to know.
I, for the record, have been on the air (radio, specifically) for an extended period of time. 19 hours. This was not a crisis situation–it was voluntary, and I got to play music. But I know what it’s like, and it isn’t easy.
Well bully for you; i’ll call CNN and recommend you for a position. But by your own admission, neither have you done the sort of coverage that Peter Jennings was doing on Tuesday. I never said that doing the sort of hours and coverage that he did on Tuesday was easy. Doing anything for 12 or 15 or 19 hours in a row is difficult. I’ve spent that many consecutive hours in front of a computer writing papers, and i’ve spent that many hours on my feet working in a hotel. But at no stage did the difficulty of doing this stuff cause me to mistake Pearl Harbor for the start of WWII. My comment about the newsreaders in general referred more specifically to their day-to-day work, and the fact that they are compensated at a level beyond most people’s wildest dreams.
And i notice that you can’t be bothered addressing the more substantial comments i made about the place of Pearl Harbor in the memory of WWII in America.
References to your own journalistic heroism do not an argument make.
Do you think the circumstances under which he was on the air made it easier?
Great. Now combine doing three or four different things at the same time for that entire period.
Might it have if someone had walked up to you and asked you a question? (I’m sure you’ll reply, “No,” so consider it rhetorical.)
Boo freakin’ hoo. Does that mean the work is not difficult, or that they are prohibited from making mistakes. Of course, it does not, and anybody who believes so is foolish.
What would you like me to say? Pearl Harbor was our official entry into the war. For us, it did last from 1941-45. That is the period within which we committed our armed forces to the conflict and declared war on the Axis powers. Would you like me to pretend otherwise to protect your sensibilities? Should we also change the dates of the Vietnam conflict to reflect the French presence for decades prior to our own?
:rolleyes: Whoops, there they go again.
How about this for an argument: Absent other evidence, I’m willing to believe that Peter Jennings was simply tired and had no particular reason or agenda behind the statement you attribute to him. I also heard Jennings refer to President Bush, following his speech, as “President Clinton.” Now, I can believe that Jennings, as part of the Evil Liberal Media Conspiracy, was attempting to undermine the Bush presidency by calling him by the name of his predecessor, or I can believe that he was tired.
pulykamell wrote:
“You know what? Yeah the pictures are horrific. But you know what, two friggin’ 767s crashed into the WTC, you ain’t gonna have pictures of roses and bunnies. So please, don’t point the finger at the media. I am sick of hearing it.”
Speaking purely for myself, pulykamell, I don’t think most of the people on this thread are against photographs; and I don’t think that they’re against individual journalists, photographers, etc. What people dislike–what I dislike–is where the line gets crossed between reporting and marketing. So taking a video of a person jumping from a building is reporting; but playing it over and over again for sensational effect can be seen to cross the line. (I didn’t see the image or the level of overplay, so I speak without actual familiarity.)
FTR, I don’t blame individual journalists and photographers for the way an event like this gets reported. It’s an industry: it’s been consolidated within very few hands, and journalists, photographers, producers, etc. are all accountable to the bottom line. So, speaking for myself, when I “point the finger at the media” it’s because I really think the people of this country deserve better news media. (The “if-you-don’t-like-it-change-the-channel” argument doesn’t work because there isn’t anything here on the order of BBC News or Channel 4 news in England.) But I don’t think that’s because American journalists and photographers are less dedicated, smart or talented than their English counterparts. So I do think it’s important to monitor the media; but that doesn’t have to mean all negatives. (I ought to have written the OP so as to invite praise of excellent media sources as well. Apologies)
I’ve been watching Dan R. and Peter J. the most. Both are clearly dedicated and trying to do a very hard job. I’d like to see a wider range of people being interviewed, and more in-depth treatment of the context. An example of the worst for me is when the switch to local news take place and they find some local family with a relative working in the WTC and film their sobbing.
But I don’t see either problem as something that Dan R., Peter J. or any anchor could singlehandedly achieve.
This is venturing out on a limb, I know. But I’d hate to see people get really angry with each other on this thread. I’ve gotten a lot out of reading other people’s impressions of what is surrounding them at this point. But the idea–as far as I’m concerned–is not to scapegoat the media (or each other).
I suppose my opinion doesn’t matter, then. I anchored news on a radio station for 8 hours on Tuesday. I started to make some slip-ups in the end, so I’m willing to give Jennings et al some slack.
Granted, my news coverage wasn’t non-stop. I was mainly reading copy, but the stories were changing so quickly that I was often left to ad-lib to hold it all together.
Generally, I don’t care for wall-to-wall TV coverage. The JFK Jr. plane crash was the worst recent example. But this was different. We stayed with special coverage (and still haven’t returned to regular programming) because it would have been obscene to switch to anything less important.
I’ve got weird feelings about Dan Rather’s quirks. He’ll apologize profusely and sincerely for screwing up or stating an inaccurate fact. But does that give him more license to screw up?
Mandelstam - I actually wasn’t addressing the OP directly, just a comment about pictures of people jumping from buildings being published.
I do agree with some of your points. I certainly agree that there is a degree of sensationalism in the media that is fueled by the ratings game. I do get irritated by all the logos and all the schmaltzy theme music, etc, etc… Luckily, here I do have a choice. I can watch CNN or BBC World. I would certainly say that BBC is more level-headed in its approach, but it’s approach hasn’t been all that radically different than CNN’s. Yep, it’s got the logo. Yep, it’s got it’s own montage of video at the end of each half-hour broadcast with ominous music playing. I don’t get any of the American networks here, and I really doubt that ABC is any more sensational than BBC World is. But, honestly, I don’t know, since I’m not there. In a related note, my cousin said that in Chicago they’ve been showing BBC via PBS.
The problem is how do you introduce the “pure” type of journalism we’re striving for in a capitalist system? Unfortunately, when it comes down to the People In Charge (Time Warner, CNN, the networks) it is about the bottom line, and it is about ratings and profit and until the American public in general becomes sick of the hypernews approach of the last few decades, nothing is going to change. From a business point-of-view it is suicide. The only way, in my opinion, would be publicly-funded television stations, like PBS, to have their own nation-wide news programs. Otherwise, until the Nielsens show that a “purer”
approach will bring in the advertising dollars, nothing is going to change.
Were I to learn, by my own experience, that a given set of speakers all seemed to make contextual reference to an event in basically the same way, then I would attribute any surprise at yet another one to be merely my own ignorance of pattern recognition clues.
There is, in fact, no Planck-time moment on which the start of World War II can pinned. It started at different times for different people in different circumstances.
I can appreciate your point. We down here understand that the War of Northern Aggression started on December 26, 1860. We also understand that General William Tecumseh Sherman was a terrorist.
It’s all a matter of reference frames. And frankly, yours is even a nittier argument than the pi equals three argument used by biblical errantists.
I agree, and I bless the hearts of Michael Enright, Peter Mansbridge, and everyone at Canada’s public broadcaster the CBC for their exemplary coverage on Tuesday’s catastrophe under the most trying of circumstances.
I’ve got bad news for you–it’s been tried at least once, and failed miserably. WBBM, a CBS affiliate in Chicago (the #3 market in the country), totally revamped their news a couple of years ago. No more happy crosstalk, no more commercial tie-ins with CBS prime-time programming, shortened weather forecasts, less sports . . . just serious news. Great idea–except the ratings fell through the floor. And this was already a last-place newscast. Granted, some of it might have been in the presentation, but as an experiment, it didn’t provide a lot of hope.
Eerily enough one of the architects of that “experiment” was CBS’ Carol Marin, who provided a memorable interview to Dan Rather on Tuesday about her near-death experience near the Twin Towers when they came down.
**pulykamell ** wrote: "The problem is how do you introduce the “pure” type of journalism we’re striving for in a capitalist system? Unfortunately, when it comes down to the People In Charge (Time Warner, CNN, the networks) it is about the bottom line, and it is about ratings and profit and until the American public in general becomes sick of the hypernews approach of the last few decades, nothing is going to change. From a business point-of-view it is suicide. The only way, in my opinion, would be publicly-funded television stations, like PBS, to have their own nation-wide news programs.
I entirely agree. I think there should be a publicly funded station on the model of the BBC. It could play children’s and after school programming in the daytime, educational programming and news in the evenings. Although PBS already covers some of this ground, PBS is no longer publicly funded to any significant degree; some of their programming is total fluff; and they do not do that much news programming. If PBS were to morph into what I’m describing it would cost the American people peanuts; and what they would get in return would be well worth it.
A “USBC” (there’s already an “ABC” in Australia) wouldn’t have to play the ratings game. It would specialize in public service and it would be directly accountable to the public. At times like these it would provide the kind of coverage that many people (including schoolteachers) really want. In-depth reporting with lots of context and several sides of an issue represented. Instead filling up the round-the-clock coverage with visits to grieving families, or interviews with rescue workers that the rescue workers could clearly live without, this station would answer important questions for us.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know more about the Taliban and its history? (One of the best CBS segments I saw was an interview with a New York Times reporter on the subject. But it was too short. Not enough questions were asked.) Rather than hear Peter Jennings make facile comparisons to Pearl Harbor–with or without the actual facts straight–wouldn’t it be better to hear what a historian or political theorist has to say about the strenghts and weaknesses of this analogy? I could go on…
The point is that there’s no good reason not to have a USBC. The costs are minimal. The real problem is that the networks would lobby against it, certain politicians would fear it, and they (particularly the NAB) call all of the shots right now. That aside, their reasons would be specious. The British (and perhaps the Canadian example) shows that a publicly-funded station does not spoil competition–on the contrary it’s great for competition. Thanks to the BBC, Channel 4 news was challenged to be even better at delivering excellent news (or so it’s seemed to me on the various occasions that I’ve lived in England for a few months at a time).
I haven’t been watching CNN much b/c I don’t have access at home. But CNN is still subject to corporate censorship–and they are now courting Rush Limbaugh in order to compete for right-leaning viewers with Fox News. Because CNN (and Fox) are driven by ratings they give us endless JFK, Condit, and other kind of trash.
As to PBS playing the BBC at this time of crisis–well that’s great. But what does that tell you?
Hey–and anyone who doesn’t like it; they can change the channel 
Then why not just SAY horrifying? :rolleyes:
Chris W
I just found out that the offensive letter I heard read on the radio consisted in excerpts of an Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman of The New York Times. This is not the first time that I’ve asked myself how it’s possible that the The Times sees fit to employ this simpleton. Here is the link to his essay, entitled–irresponsibly–“World War III”. If you want to read it, read it fairly soon, or the Times will want to charge you $2.50 for the pleasure.
Here, on the other hand, is a link to what is IMO a really superb editorial from today’s Times.
I think this is stupid … but I’m not sure why …
Last night on Fox, it was announced that the investigators had compiled a list of people who may have been working with the terrorists. The news went on to say that all airline ticket and reservations lists were being checked against this investigation list, and that any of these people trying to board a plane would be detained for questioning.
Now, I’ve never claimed to be the brightest person on the planet (ok, well hardly ever), but I don’t think I need to be told that the airlines are checking this list. It seems obvious to me. But what if one some criminal associate doesn’t realize this, hears it on the news, and changes his or her plans to go to the airport?
I realize it’s incredibly unlikely that terrorists couldn’t figure it out for themselves, but what if? If the news hadn’t reported it, would it be denying me news and information? It’s not news that I need. If there’s even a slim possibility that reporting such details might have a negative impact on the investigation, shouldn’t the news agencies be weighing that against the news value of the information (which in this case I think is pretty low)? Keep in mind I’m not saying that government should do this – so it’s not a freedom of the press issue – just that the networks should be asking these sorts of questions of themselves.
What are you talking about Chris? What possible use could there be for a blend of the words ‘horrible’ and ‘terrific’? Who is to say the word isn’t a combination of ‘horrific’ and ‘terrible’? I don’t think the journalists are conveying an inappropriate sentiment. They are just being lazy and slipping into cliches and banality.uu
Mandelstam, Thomas Friedman had it right. This will be WWIII. It wasn’t irresponsible to state the obvious - if the world doesn’t act in concert to eliminate or at least substantially cripple acts of terrorism, said terrorists will increase power and influence to our detriment. This threatens the existence of small countries now. It will begin to spill over to larger countries. Have you read the BBC online indicating a terrorist plan to kill the entire EU parliament earlier this year? This is no longer a small, isolated attack. It has become an act of war. When the world is involved, it legitimately is a World War. How could you argue otherwise?
Only if we can ensure that it is as fair and balanced as NPR. :rolleyes:
It would be one more thing for Congress to argue about: what and who should be on, how much time for each side in a debate, etc.
Someone’s gonna be pissed that their tax dollars are supporting “state propaganda” that doesn’t include their viewpoint. And when they win the suit, we’re gonna have the “Montana Independance Hour” followed by “Marxism Today.” Or, if they lose, after we find nobody is watching it, they’ll chnage the programming and soon we’ll just have PBS 2.
Would some linguist among us please take riserius aside and explain that the suffix -fic derives from the Latin -fer to bear, or carry? Therefore, horrific means to carry, or bear, or embody horror. And the original meaning of terrific was not “really good,” but rather, “being the physical manifestation of terror.”
There just aren’t words enough to capture the badness of what happened Tuesday. All of the words we have are going to be used repeatedly and repetitiously in the attempt to do so, nonetheless.
NaSultainne–let me assure you that I’m well aware of the fact that whatever war takes place will entail international involvement. But let me remind you that the Gulf War involved multinational forces and it was not called “World War 3”; and the Korean War also involved UN forces and it involved China, a major power, on the opposing side. 35,000 American soldiers died in that war and almost 6 million served. Yet no one saw fit to call it “World War III.”
Do you think that maybe the reason that the people who lived through the Korean War didn’t call it WWIII might be because a lot of them remembered WWII and weren’t eager to see it replicated, even symbolically?
Here are the death tolls for the countries with the highest numbers of military and civilian deaths out of the 61 countries who took part:
“USSR more than 13,000,000 military and 7,000,000 civilian;
China 3,500,000 and 10,000,000; Germany 3,500,000 and 3,800,000; Poland 120,000 and 5,300,000; Japan 1,700,000
and 380,000; Yugoslavia 300,000 and 1,300,000; Romania 200,000 and 465,000; France 250,000 and 360,000; British
Empire and Commonwealth 452,000 and 60,000; Italy 330,000 and 80,000; Hungary 120,000 and 280,000; and
Czechoslovakia 10,000 and 330,000.”
The US, btw, lost 400,000 soldiers.
Source: http://www.emayzine.com/lectures/WWII.html
Still eager to rush headlong with Thomas Friedman into World War III?
riserius, “terrific” was originally used (as kaylasdad points out) to describe something really bad, just like bad used to mean bad but now it means good. While reading a Victorian short story the other day, I was startled to find the word in this context. The word ‘terrific’ was used in reference to a ghastly murder in a way that wouldn’t make sense at all if the meaning of the word hadn’t changed since then.
My own media peeve regards the local news. On Tuesday, while events were unfolding, they kept interrupting the real news to present local “news”. Bear in mind that I live in Amarillo TX, which is smack-dab in the center of the country and about as far from the action as possible, with hundreds of miles of nothing in every direction. We are home to Pantex, the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, and Bell Helicopter, where they make the Osprey helicopters, but once the planes were grounded there was no real threat.
The local newswoman was giving an on-the-scene report from downtown, where the city had decided to evacuate our largest skyscraper (23 stories!) just to be safe. This was after all the planes were grounded and accounted for, so this measure seemed unnecessary.
Standing behind the reporter were two guys, grinning stupidly. As the woman excitedly described the “terror and panic” felt by the residents as they fled to safety, one of the guys interrupted her by pointing at the sky and shouting, “A plane! Aaagh! A plane! It’s headed right for the building! Aaagh!”. This was accompanied by his friend’s raucous laughter.
The reporter panicked and began to whine, “these people are not listening! They’re supposed to be evacuating, and they’re not evacuating!” This went on for a full two minutes.
Local news, please don’t interrupt the real news if you have nothing to report. Please don’t try to sensationalize and panic people by implying that our city is in immediate and mortal danger when it is not. And when some jerk who is clearly too stupid to live interrupts your live broadcast, cut back to the studio.