• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Scrapping personal plans to anchor breaking news

TheBigA said:
Huh? Are you saying the attack on the WTC was predictable? Maybe you should look at the timeline of that day again.

News happens every day. Anchors aren't where the news happens unless it's a planned event. It takes time to mobilize remote satellite trucks, technical crews, and other stuff. CNN had anchored morning news in Atlanta for 20 years without incident before a plane crashed into the WTC.
Click to expand...

I have an intense understanding of the timeline of that day. I have written summaries on this. Aaron Brown was put into service well after it was known that NYC was under attack. Again, he provided near on-site commentary on the collapse of the 2nd building, atleast 90 minutes after the first plane attacked. Before you challenge me on the timeline of 9/11, check it again so you can be more accurate here.
 
Last edited:
ixnay said:
You put the issue in perfect perspective, seatown. Thanks. (I say all that without an iota of sarcasm.)

ixnay
Click to expand...

Thanks. I try to stick to facts, not perceptions. While this thread has delved off to sidebars, the main question is about anchors who will give up their personal lives for a big story. The best of the best will do anything to get the big story on the air. CNN wasn't prepared in NYC on 9/11, but again they were not one of the big 3. While they provided coverage from Atlanta at the outset, there is nothing like being on the ground for a big story, and in this case, perhaps the biggest story of our lifetimes.
 
seatownmedia said:
Before you challenge me on the timeline of 9/11, check it again so you can be more accurate here.
Click to expand...

I brought up the timeline because you say they had lots of time. They really didn't. In fact, the City and the Mayor had difficulty responding as the events transpired.

You make it sound like CNN was covering other stories until Aaron Brown showed up. That's not true. They did non-stop anchored coverage from the first report at 8:49. They had other reporters in NYC during that time. And they were involving coverage from Boston and DC as well. But it was being anchored in Atlanta. That's the only difference. The fact that it took 90 minutes to get Aaron Brown on location, with proper technical set up, briefed on all that had happened to that point, is NOT a lot of time.

As you study your timeline, at what point was the Air Force informed of this attack? At what point were they able to mobilize their pilots and aircraft to counter this attack? My recollection is it was about the same amount of time.
 
TheBigA said:
I brought up the timeline because you say they had lots of time. They really didn't. In fact, the City and the Mayor had difficulty responding as the events transpired.

You make it sound like CNN was covering other stories until Aaron Brown showed up. That's not true. They did non-stop anchored coverage from the first report at 8:49. They had other reporters in NYC during that time. And they were involving coverage from Boston and DC as well. But it was being anchored in Atlanta. That's the only difference. The fact that it took 90 minutes to get Aaron Brown on location, with proper technical set up, briefed on all that had happened to that point, is NOT a lot of time.

As you study your timeline, at what point was the Air Force informed of this attack? At what point were they able to mobilize their pilots and aircraft to counter this attack? My recollection is it was about the same amount of time.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure what we arguing about here. I never said CNN was covering other stories before Aaron came on. If that were true, they would have been in gross negligence of reporting the story. My only point was that CNN was not prepared with "boots on the ground" for this story, but again, why should they be? Nobody could have predicted this. I'm sure CNN had access to NYC affiliates, and while I was not tuned into CNN in the early minutes, I would guess they used those affiliates. The Aaron Brown story is interesting in that he was the best "on the ground" option for CNN, and he was awarded with an Edward R. Murrow award for his coverage, even though he wasn't set to go on-air for a month.
 
TheBigA said:
Exactly. On that we both agree.
Click to expand...

OK - your exchange has made me curious. Naturally, I was watching on the morning of 9/11, and it was probably CNN, but don't remember. I assume that while they were anchoring from Atlanta, they did have reporters on or near the scene at the WTC - likely reporters from their NY affiliate, whoever that might have been at the time. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I realize that there is some benefit to having an anchor at the scene for a breaking live story - especially one this serious. But I don't see a problem with anchoring from Atlanta for awhile, assuming they had reporters on the scene.
 
LKellerIII said:
I assume that while they were anchoring from Atlanta, they did have reporters on or near the scene at the WTC - likely reporters from their NY affiliate, whoever that might have been at the time.
Click to expand...

CNN had a New York office with a bureau of reporters. And they also had an arrangement with a local station. I can't remember which one. It may have been WABC.
 
As a viewer that day, I cared not a bit about whether the anchoring was coming from Atlanta, New York or elsewhere. I cared about the facts. That does not diminish the reporting of anyone on site, but simply but that is to the sole criteria for whether an event is being covered well.

But circling back to what started the conversation, I would submit that skipping your child's graduation is not something to be proud of or the hallmark of a "great one." Just a personal opinion on the importance of what really matters.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
As a viewer that day, I cared not a bit about whether the anchoring was coming from Atlanta, New York or elsewhere. I cared about the facts. That does not diminish the reporting of anyone on site, but simply but that is to the sole criteria for whether an event is being covered well.

But circling back to what started the conversation, I would submit that skipping your child's graduation is not something to be proud of or the hallmark of a "great one." Just a personal opinion on the importance of what really matters.
Click to expand...

I understand your point, and it is a good one. However, one thing to keep in mind is network anchors and reporters understand what they are getting into when they join the ranks. If they are not willing to go to the big story, then perhaps they are in the wrong profession. Sorry if that sounds anti-family, but it is the reality of this kind of a job. But point well-taken.
 
seatownmedia said:
I understand your point, and it is a good one. However, one thing to keep in mind is network anchors and reporters understand what they are getting into when they join the ranks. If they are not willing to go to the big story, then perhaps they are in the wrong profession. Sorry if that sounds anti-family, but it is the reality of this kind of a job. But point well-taken.
Click to expand...

In fairness, I do think much of the blame--and this is by no means unique to media--rests with the companies themselves. Yes, many of the people know what they're getting into, the holidays and such. And I recognize that, particularly at the upper echelons both locally and at the national level, there is considerable compensation. So no, they can't make every recital, game, PTA meeting or what have you, just as many working parents can't. And there are many working parents who miss more significant milestones out of economic necessity.

But when one has the opportunity and misses the once-in-a-lifetime moment of graduation...that's just sad on all fronts. The world will not end if "anchor star x" doesn't cover a day or two of some big event. And I wish the outlets would take a meaningful stand for families. There is, or at least should be, a deep enough talent bench to adequately handle things. My personal take as a viewer (putting just that hat on) is that I'd have considerably more respect for said anchor if I knew they were there for their kid and came back after. Then again, I'm not someone who's going to care one iota if, say, Lester Holt isn't the one covering a breaking news story and Matt Lauer is. Fact is, I might not even think about it--it's someone from NBC, I'm getting the news, I'm good to go.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
In fairness, I do think much of the blame--and this is by no means unique to media--rests with the companies themselves. Yes, many of the people know what they're getting into, the holidays and such. And I recognize that, particularly at the upper echelons both locally and at the national level, there is considerable compensation. So no, they can't make every recital, game, PTA meeting or what have you, just as many working parents can't. And there are many working parents who miss more significant milestones out of economic necessity.

But when one has the opportunity and misses the once-in-a-lifetime moment of graduation...that's just sad on all fronts. The world will not end if "anchor star x" doesn't cover a day or two of some big event. And I wish the outlets would take a meaningful stand for families. There is, or at least should be, a deep enough talent bench to adequately handle things. My personal take as a viewer (putting just that hat on) is that I'd have considerably more respect for said anchor if I knew they were there for their kid and came back after. Then again, I'm not someone who's going to care one iota if, say, Lester Holt isn't the one covering a breaking news story and Matt Lauer is. Fact is, I might not even think about it--it's someone from NBC, I'm getting the news, I'm good to go.
Click to expand...

I think you understand that's what you're in for when you get into the TV news business. I always feel sorry for the reporters that management makes stay for the 11:00 broadcast to do a "live" report that consists of standing out in the cold to introduce the tape they shot at 3:00 in the afternoon. On the other hand - they make a good living...in major markets, anyway.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom