[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Corporate network bash
--- Dave Faneuf <email@example.com> wrote:
> It's obvious that people responding to this post
> have gotten way past
> the old notion that the airwaves are public and that
> stations and network
> have a responsibility to the public.
> So, when The U-S launches the attack and CNN has it
> live the other
> networks won't have to cover it?
That would be a different situation. That would be
breaking news and should be covered live. A
Presidential speech announcing that a decision has
been made to begin an attack should also be covered
live. Last night's speech featured nothing new. The
President was simply trying to build support for his
policy by reiterating what he has been saying for the
last few weeks. There is nothing wrong with that, but
I don't see why carrying the speech live was all that
important or in the public interest.
I would be inclined to provide some live coverage of
the Congressional debate on the military force
resolution. In that case, both sides of the issue
would be represented and the public would be informed
of both sides of the debate. I think the public would
be better served by that kind of coverage instead of
coverage of one side making the same points that have
been made, and well covered, over the last few weeks.
-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More