On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > "But, I would say the much more likely reason is because, as you're > pointing out (to a degree that is making me even start wondering the > meta-question of why is it necessary to point out so vehemently why it > matters that the commentary be live...but that's a different topic > altogether), there *are* people to whom it matters. So, they don't > announce it, so that those don't know the difference." > > Sorry, I didn't make this point as clearly as I wanted. I meant to > contrast your statement about it making a difference to "most people" by > saying it probably matters to *some* people, but even if it were only a > few, why would the network want to point it out to those people, if all > they'd do would be piss them off? They wouldn't gain any points with any > of the rest of the audience, so it's just a lose-lose situation for them. >
Of course, my point is that it does make a difference, because it allows the broadcaster to distort and manipulate the event to maximize drama and audience interest, at the expense of what actually happened. But even if that only made a difference to a few, is your argument really that it is okay to lie as long as you don't get caught? And yes, I am saying that if (and again, this is only "if", as I have no direct evidence that it is actually happening this year) NBC were broadcasting sporting events with commentary added after the fact in post production without informing the audience, that would be a lie. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
