Re: news on the weekend re-visited

[hmglaz@webtv.net (H Glazer)]

Donna Halper, Bob Nelson and others have been discussing WBZ(AM)'s
priorities during the impeachment hearings and bombing of Iraq. There
has also been a good deal of criticism of the station for sticking with
the Bruins when impeachment/bombing is going on.

WBZ is not an all-news station. It is a news, sports and talk station.
I'd no sooner expect it to break format for these two stories than I'd
expect any of cable TV's specialty channels to. This also is true for
music-formatted stations.

Network television and the three cable news operations have huge news
departments. Additionally, the networks still command the greatest
number of eyeballs at any one time of any of the nation's media. These
entities, with their longstanding commitment to news, would be negligent
if they didn't devote large chunks of time to important stories.

However, I wouldn't expect -- and indeed, wouldn't want -- the
impeachment or Iraq story all over my radio dial or cable box. Why
should WKLB or WAAF or Lifetime or ESPN break format for events that,
while noteworthy and even historic, hardly qualify as imminent dangers
or national emergencies? 

Now, if the president had been killed, or some nation were bombing
American cities, I'd certainly expect all regular TV and radio
programming to cease. My question is: Would this be possible today? If
an assassination were to take place on a weekend, what would happen at
the downsized radio stations with a satellite music feed and a
minimum-wager or such babysitting the downlink? Or at USA Network, with
no news department or on-air staff, just engineers making sure "Silk
Stalkings" is ready to air?

Obviously, sporting events would be halted in the event of an attack or
assassination, as they were in 1941 and 1963 (at least for a while;
right, Pete Rozelle?). But would all media even be able to shift gears?

Howard

------------------------------