On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 7:04 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > If this is true I think it is shocking, and a scandal. Deciding what image > appears on the screen is an editorial and production choice that should be > up to the news organizations covering the event. Even the NFL, that pays > millions of dollars to have their product televised, does not literally call > the shots.
Didn't we also recently chat about some local stations who signed contracts pledging not to ask Romney about certain subjects in exchange for interviews? This is what passes for journalism, and this is how it has been for some time. News organizations serving as stenographers, documenting what takes place but not questioning it, happy to get invited to the events -- so happy they don't feel the need to report inaccuracies to the public. The politicians dictate the terms, and anybody who doesn't like it will find themselves out in the cold. The scandal is not that such things take place. The scandal is that such things are the norm, and there is no outrage. In my perfect world of convention coverage, the first hour of prime time coverage would be devoted to the protestors outside (and this goes for both conventions), and the second hour would be the reporters who were outside coming onto the convention floor and questioning delegates and politicians about what the people outside were protesting about. Then, maybe, if there is time, show a speech or two. -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- 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
