Re: Coverage of Press Conference

["Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sven Franklyn Weil" <sven@gordsven.com>
To: "Adam Rivers" <adamrivers@prodigy.net>
Cc: "Boston Interest Radio Group Thingy"
<boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 11, 2001 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Coverage of Press Conference


> Gimmie a break.  The man said absolutely nothing of substance. Not that
> there was anything to _BE_ said anymore.

Substance isn't what such addresses are about.  The point is to reassure the
American people and to show our resolve.  That's what he did and that's any
President would do.  What did you want him to say?

As for there not being anymore to say, I don't think that's the case.  I
just saw an interview on ABC explaining the structure of the towers and why
they collapsed.  It was new information to me.  I have also seen pieces
explaining about terrorists and the diplomatic and military problems with
responding to such attacks.  New information for most people who do not
follow these issues closely.

I think the networks tonight have done a good job summarizing what happening
during the day, because a lot of people could not watch TV until tonight.
Now they are moving on to filling in details about what happened and what
may happen in the future.  I am often a media critic, but I think they have
generally been at their best today.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine