okamoto@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Doctor Who) (01/30/86)
Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears" of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum). The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official news feed. So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger. The New Number Who, okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu Jeff Okamoto ..!ucbvax!okamoto
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (01/31/86)
In article <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> okamoto@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Doctor Who) writes: > >The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official >news feed. So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed >morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger. > >Jeff Okamoto ..!ucbvax!okamoto I watched the NASA feed from ignition to 4 hours after the explosion. It not once showed the crowd or any people at all. Okamoto, what in the world prompted you to post what you did ??? Al Algustyniak
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (02/03/86)
> Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about > the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears" > of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum). > > The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official > news feed. So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed > morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger. > > > The New Number Who, okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu > Jeff Okamoto ..!ucbvax!okamoto You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. This reminds me of the nighttime soap opera that was on years ago called: America Held Hostage, Day N. They call it Nightline now. ray
gjl@ihwpt.UUCP (g licitis) (02/04/86)
> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official > news feed. So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed > morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger. > > > The New Number Who, okamoto@ucbvax.berkeley.edu > Jeff Okamoto ..!ucbvax!okamoto It wasn't NASA that kept repeating the clip every couple of minutes. Not only did the networks think that the clips of the families reaction was newsworthy but they must think that it helps boost their ratings. Here it is nearly a week after the accident and I still see the same clips. Gunars Licitis AT&T Bell Labs Naperville Il.
emil@rochester.UUCP (Emil Rainero) (02/04/86)
In article <15019@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >> Let's remember one thing before everybody else starts flaming about >> the callous news coverage by the networks (ie, the "elation-to-tears" >> of the crowd, etc, etc, ad nauseum). >You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were >responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and >over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was >a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible >journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. I quote from USA Today, Wed. January 29 "As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows, they also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing collectively up to $1.7 million an hour." Give us a break, Ray. -- Emil Rainero UUCP: {allegra, cmcl2, decvax, harvard, seismo}!rochester!emil ARPA: emil@rochester.arpa USmail: Emil Rainero, Dept. of Comp. Sci., U. of Rochester, NY 14627. Phone: Office: (716) 275-5365 Home: (716) 473-1150
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (02/04/86)
To me, the most agravating part of the coverage was the stupid questions asked by reporters at the hastily called news conferences. At the one called at the White House barely 15 minutes after the explosion, Larry Speakes told the assembled reporters that the President had not made a statement, but had just stood in front of the TV set with a shocked and pained look on his face (just as most of the rest of us did). When the questions started, the first three were "What did the President say?" The twits had just heard Speakes say he did not say anything. The fourth question was "How does the President think this will effect the shuttle program?" Now, how stupid can you get? If they ever have brain transplants, I want one from a newsman. They have never been used. Latter in the day, my 15 year old son started keeping a talley of the ratio between stupid questions and good questions. The stupid (I mean inane) questions outnumbered the good questions 5 to 1. What does this tell us about the quality of news types reasoning power? I will leave that up to you folks. As far as I am concerned, they have shown that once again they should all be classed somewhere lower than a snakes patootie. I think the classification "professional" should be dropped from the lexicon when refering to the news media. T. C. Wheeler
jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) (02/04/86)
To the author of this dribble: > You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were > responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and > over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was > a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible > journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. > > This reminds me of the nighttime soap opera that was on years ago called: > America Held Hostage, Day N. They call it Nightline now. Please explain WHY you think that showing the crowd at the launch was an example of "irresponsible" journalism, and please explain what it is about the reportage of unfortunate events that makes the news media "callous". And, if I may be permitted to get my digs in, it is thinking of people who hold your views that would prefer that TV and the press suppress information at their discretion, and only show us, perhaps, what the government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (02/04/86)
> > "As the networks pre-empted soap operas and game shows, they > also dropped commercials for the afternoon, costing collectively > up to $1.7 million an hour." > > Give us a break, Ray. > > Emil Rainero You have a point there which I must of course counter with another point: How much money did Nightline make directly due to America Held Hostage Day N? The networks will turn a siatuation into a buck where ever they can. ray
mitchell@kvue.UUCP (Roger Mitchell) (02/05/86)
>The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official >news feed . . . Actually, each network (and a lot of local news stations) DO have their own cameras present at the launch. The NASA pool feed is provided to reduce the amount of television hardware present at the KSC (the trucks used by networks in covering special events are 45 foot long semi-trailors), and because, face it, shuttle launches just aren't (or weren't) that big to the "average viewer". However, I believe that the video we were seeing of the families in the reviewing area was shot by non-NASA photographers, so let us in this business take "credit" for that somewhat unnecessary intrusion into the families grief.
woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (02/05/86)
> You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were > responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and > over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was > a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible > journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. I hate to tell you this, but we are just as bad as the media. It is no coincidence that there are 50 times more articles in net.columbia since the disaster than there were before. (One or two a day previously based on nearly a hundred per day since the fatal morning). The media only deliver what the people want to see. Based on number of contributions, we are certainly a lot more interested in discussing the shuttle program now that we've had a disaster. Why should the media be expected to be any different? --Greg
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (02/06/86)
> The ONLY video coming out from the launch site was NASA's official > news feed. So don't go blaming the networks for their supposed > morbid curiosity of the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the Challenger. > > Jeff Okamoto ..!ucbvax!okamoto > Nope! It was the networks morbid sense of what is news that is at fault, not NASA. From TIME 10 Feb 1986, page 42: Some viewers were offended at the oft-repeated shots that had been taped by WNEV-TV in Boston of School-teacher Christa McAuliffe's parents viewing the launch at the Kennedy Space Center. So don't go blaming NASA when it's the media's fault. Al ALgustyniak
agparghi@watnot.UUCP (Amit Parghi) (02/07/86)
In article <192@sivax.UUCP> jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) writes: > Why don't you go to Canada or the >Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. Dear Jim, My I ask you WHY Canada is an example of having "your information controlled"? The ONLY relevant case that comes to my mind is a possible instance of newspaper anti-trust. I don't see how anyone with 20/20 vision could honestly call Canada's information "controlled"; might you be referring to something of which I'm not aware? In any case, we don't have Accuracy in Media Accuracy in Academia National Coalition on Television Violence The Washington Wives The K.G.B. TASS etc. No offense at all intended to the many, many Americans out there, but I really think that flames and miscellaneous accusations should be fully researched and backed up before being thrown around like confetti. - Amit Parghi -- Amit PARGHI St Jerome's College, WATERLOO, Ontario, N2L 3G3, Canada. UUCP: {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,clyde,utzoo}!watmath!watnot!agparghi CSNET: agparghi%watnot@waterloo.CSNET ARPA: agparghi%watnot%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA BITNET: agparghi@WATDCSU.BITNET
jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) (02/07/86)
> > Please explain WHY you think that showing the crowd at the launch was an > example of "irresponsible" journalism, and please explain what it is about > the reportage of unfortunate events that makes the news media "callous". > And, if I may be permitted to get my digs in, it is thinking of people > who hold your views that would prefer that TV and the press suppress > information at their discretion, and only show us, perhaps, what the > government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the > Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. I would really like to know where you get off even implying that there is less control of the news in your "free" country than there is in Canada. I do not see why television news has to show someone getting their head blown off, or someone jumping off a building. It does not make the fact any more real. If I remember correctly, one of the most horrifying things on "U.S." television was when a man doused himself with lighter fluid or gasoline and then proceeded to light himself on fire. All this while the cameras were rolling. To top it off the cameras just kept on rolling while he burnt. No one tried to stop him and no one tried to put the flames out. This is an excellent example of what jounalism has become in the US. It is not journalism. It is sensationalism. It is not news to watch someone die. It is horrible. What it does produce is ratings. Human beings love to watch other human beings suffer. It does not say very much for our civilization does it. Let's stop all this ambulance chasing and just report the news. By the way, you must be extremely naive if you think that journalism is not controlled to some extent in the US, or anywhere else in the world. Q: If 10,000 UFO's flew over Buffalo, which ones would be reported? A: The ones that were on fire. "Time it was and what a time it was..." - Paul Simon Bookends Jim Boritz @ watnot
demo@watdcsu.UUCP (COURSE USE [DCS]) (02/07/86)
It Pains me to see a supposedly educated person classify the canadian press
as being in the same catagory as the Soviet official news agency. If our
press doesn't seem to report as many murders and rapes as your oh so
illustrious country's maybe its because we dont have as many of the acts
and not due to some mythical censorship. As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship
imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get
to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss
I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a
favor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing
your foot so firmly in your throat .
Richard Attenborough
bix:rattenborough
Disclaimer: The University of Waterloo doesn't have anything to do with
my opinions (neither do little green men)waltt@tekecs.UUCP (Walt Tucker) (02/07/86)
> You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were > responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and > over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was > a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible > journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. I first heard of the disaster at work about 40 minutes after it happened. A friend of mine had heard a few news reports and informed me of what he gleaned from the radio on the way to work. Like many others, it immediately felt like a kick in the stomach. I, too, have been a follower of the space program for many years (as a matter of fact I have models of the Columbia and the Apollo at my desk) and deeply mourn their loss. After hearing the news, I, of course, wanted more information. Unfortunately, there are no radios in my area, and I was scheduled for two hours of meetings. All my information at this point was one sketchy word of mouth report. The meetings took place and my thoughts were not really on what was being discussed. After finally getting some free time (about 2 1/2 hours after the tragedy), I rushed home to catch some TV coverage and gain more information. I realize that many people had been viewing the same videotape clips for over two hours at that point. For me, though as I'm sure as it was throughout the day for many others in similar situations, it was the first detailed account of the explosion I saw. Although I agree, in part, that continuing to probe the scenes in Concord, N.H. and to capitalize on people's grief 10, 20, or 30 hours after the tragedy was unnecessary, the footage taken during and immediately after the launch were valuable in understanding the scope and immensity of went on. I'll also have to complement Peter Jennings on his handling of the matter and showing more concern than some of the other national network newscasters. I was only able to watch coverage for twenty or thirty minutes before returning to work, and I heard Jennings apologize two or three times about running clips people had already seen (remember, I had not), etc. BTW, the networks did not make any money that day. As a matter of fact, I believe each network forfeited about $9 million in revenue due to programming cancellations. Remember, advertisers pay to sponsor specific programs. If ads don't air, people don't get paid. Some sponsors that have very segmented consumer products lost the whole soap opera market segment for that particular day. I'm sure some Madison Avenue ad exec would translate this into lost dollars for you. A follow-up news report on the local Portland station covered the network coverage a couple of days later, and included a couple of interviews with network switchboard operators who were flooded with calls from housewives wondering why the networks thought the shuttle news was so important that they had to cancel their soap operas. Think about it. -- Walt Tucker Tektronix, Inc.
mikes@apple.UUCP (Mike Shannon) (02/08/86)
Ray writes: >You have a point there which I must of course counter with another point: How >much money did Nightline make directly due to America Held Hostage Day N? The >networks will turn a siatuation into a buck where ever they can. Seeing as how the networks are corporations, it seems only natural that their shareholders would encourage the network execs to engage in profit-seeking behavior. I would certainly not want to hold the stock of a corporation whose executives weren't concerned about profits. -- Michael Shannon {apple!mikes}
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (02/08/86)
> You are forgetting one thing. It was the callous news networks that were > responsible for showing the crowd's bemoaning the loss of the shuttle over and > over and over and over ......, not NASA. At first it was news and then it was > a money maker for the networks. This is just another case of irresponsible > journalism exercised so ofter by the American news media. I am ashamed of them. > I don't agree. I was one of many who heard about the shuttle on the radio while at work. I was *VERY* glad the news was repeated so that I could see it *ONCE* when I got home. While I think the invasion of privacy for the family was not good, I do think that the networks did the right thing is showing the film of the shuttle exploding 'over and over and over'. Not all of us can spend the time to watch it over and over, but we sure can appreciate having it available at the time we can see it. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
credmond@watmath.UUCP (Chris Redmond) (02/08/86)
In article <2078@watdcsu.UUCP> demo@watdcsu.UUCP writes: > As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship >imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get >to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss >I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a >favor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing >your foot so firmly in your throat . > No, I'm glad the original comment (equating the Canadian media with those in the USSR) was posted here. It gives us a chance to correct it. Some Americans are so ignorant about Canada that we need every chance we can get to tell them what really goes on! (Apologies to the many Americans who realize that the world has a few free countries besides their own, and that not all free countries are clones of theirs.)
lamy@utai.UUCP (Jean-Francois Lamy) (02/09/86)
In article <192@sivax.UUCP> jim@sivax.UUCP (Jim Boman) writes: >government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the >Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. May I ask for some substantive evidence for your analogy? NBC,ABC,CBS, PBS and ETV are all available in Canada, CTV gets a lot of newstape from those networks, Global gets a lot from Turner's CNN, which is available on pay TV, anyway. Even state television is so much controlled by the government that it recently made public scandals which led to the resignation of a minister and seriously damaged the government's credibility... CBC runs a lot of newstape from the BBC, and in Quebec you can even get the evening news from France. If I'm going to be restricted in what I hear, that's the way I want to be restricted :-). -- Jean-Francois Lamy Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, U. de Montreal. CSNet: lamy@toronto.csnet UUCP: {utzoo,ihnp4,decwrl,uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!lamy EAN: lamy@iro.udem.cdn ARPA: lamy%toronto.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.arpa
wagner@utcs.uucp (Michael Wagner) (02/10/86)
I'm glad someone else remarked on this first. Sometimes I feel that I jump in too quickly. But the remark lumping Canada and the Soviet Union into the same basket w.r.t. news censorship was, at first blush, unsubstantiated and un-called-for. But alas, he gave, as illustration of his point, a joke that I fear will be misunderstood outside the "local viewing area". To recap..... In article <11456@watnot.UUCP> jjboritz@watnot.UUCP (Jim Boritz) writes: >> (some else (the attributation is lost) wrote) >> government would like us to see? Why don't you go to Canada or the >> Soviet Union if you'd like to have your information controlled. > >I would really like to know where you get off even implying that there is >less control of the news in your "free" country than there is in Canada. (then follows comments saying that sensationalism is overdone in news broadcasts) > >By the way, you must be extremely naive if you think that journalism is not >controlled to some extent in the US, or anywhere else in the world. Incidentally, there is one card in the Trivial Persuits game which is not in the American version, although it is in the (original) Canadian one. It asks (I'm paraphrasing) how pregnant Nancy Reagan was when she walked down the aisle with Ronny. It was suppressed, I suppose, because it would make Ronny look like a hypocrite from both sides of the M+M (moral majority) line. But hey, cummon, it's only a game..... Now, Channel 7 (Eyewitness) News in Buffalo is a standing joke in Toronto. Every evening (well, all right, sometimes in the spring or fall they miss a an evening and cut in some other attraction instead), they show seven cute little wooden cottages burning to the ground in Cheektawaga or Tonawanda (sp?). In Toronto, where all houses built in the last n years must be at least brick exterior, it's hard to imagine so many houses going up in smoke. The explanation is always that the poor family, with faulty furnace, turned the heat up to high, and the place caught fire. Now, I've basically stopped watching their news (it gets depressing), but in the last few years I've made friends in Buffalo. Contrary to my expectations, there isn't always a conflagration burning somewhere on the horizon. In fact, no one I've asked has ever seen *any* of the houses shown on Ch7 news every night. Maybe it's all done with little models... Anyways...now you know why the next line might be funny. Maybe you had to be there. > >Q: If 10,000 UFO's flew over Buffalo, which ones would be reported? > > >A: The ones that were on fire. > > >"Time it was and what a time it was..." - Paul Simon Bookends > >Jim Boritz @ watnot Michael Wagner (@ utcs)
kerry@ctvax (02/14/86)
>In article <2078@watdcsu.UUCP> demo@watdcsu.UUCP writes: >> As far as I can tell (and I have lived in various parts of this country for my entire life) there is no censorship >>imposed upon the press of Canada except their own conciences. We rarely get >>to see the tears of a victims family as they are buried , gee what a loss >>I think I will move to the good ol' US of A tomorrow. Next time do us all a >f>avor and either limit your distribuion to the US or think before placing >>your foot so firmly in your throat . >> >No, I'm glad the original comment (equating the Canadian media with those >in the USSR) was posted here. It gives us a chance to correct it. Some >Americans are so ignorant about Canada that we need every chance we can >get to tell them what really goes on! (Apologies to the many Americans >who realize that the world has a few free countries besides their own, >and that not all free countries are clones of theirs.) Well, you have your chance, but all I see is some nationalistic rhetoric.
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (02/17/86)
> But the remark lumping Canada and the Soviet Union > into the same basket w.r.t. news censorship was, at first blush, > unsubstantiated and un-called-for. You are right. On behalf of many of the US Usenet readers, I apologize. I do this as a private citizen, and not as an official of the US Government. The gentleman's remarks were rude and inapproprate. We should make certain he does not take a post with the State Department. Canada: we thank you for developing the Shuttle arm. Now, if we can only resolve our acid rain problems... From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-nas.ARPA