ABC had no business interrupting "Body of Proof"

[vchimpanzee]

It was not news that couldn't have waited 30 minutes. And NBC properly waited until a commercial break during "Parenthood" to tell us who won some insignificant Republican primary.

I really don't care, because the results of these individual primaries don't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things.

Now if the scene left out of the show had been Lacey's favorite band and Lacey's parents talking about her infatuation with its lead singer, that would have been another matter entirely, but they were talking about clues in a murder investigation. You don't leave details out of a murder mystery.

 

[quadraphonic]

You're too wrapped up in it man.
Relax.

 

[vchimpanzee]

It's not like someone shot Santorum.

 

[FreddyE1977]

You sound like me back in the 70's when I had waited weeks and weeks and weeks to see
the highly hyped premiere of Battlestar Gallactica, only to have it interrupted at the crucial
climax by Jimmy Carter.

And for what? Peace between Egypt and Israel? feh!

 

[quadraphonic]

So what if they cut out the middle of an episode every five years?
Just fill in the blanks with your own clues. Make up your own storyline.
Why be a follower? It's not like there's gonna be a quiz on "Body of Proof" episodes. A Trivial Pursuit Network TV In 2012 Edition would probably not even note it.

 

[nathannah]

Hold on though, he has a point. I watch this show weekly (usually TiVoed) and in the past since January they've just compressed down the commercials a bit and then break the election news at the end of BoP so nobody gets ticked off that they broke in (and trust me, this week? The Parenthood finale? You'd bet NBC News would be laid out on the carpet if they broke into it during). And now this weekend I'll have to watch it on Hulu rather than through my ABC recording because the news department was too damned jumpy to wait until 10:58pm like they did the last few weeks.

Trust me, if it was a world leader who died or a big national tragedy? No problem. Election results we know would go one way or another for weeks and were compressed down to 30 words in the AP release? Wait it out, ABC.

All they just did was wound the heck out of their Live+5 day ratings because the show got interrupted to tell us something that could've easily been compressed into an Activia ad space.

 

[quadraphonic]

There may be a point in there, but "ABC had no business..." sounds mightymighty petulant and a little clingy.

 

[DToTheJ]

Yesterday, Republican-leaning journalist Andrew Breitbart died suddenly. Breitbart was an ABC contributor. Coincidence?

 

[firepoint525]

ABC news interrupted one of the Peanuts Valentine's Day specials to tell us that Whitney Houston had died. This was at about 7:15 p.m. CST that evening. Even though those were reruns and children's programming, it would have made a lot more sense to just have a crawl across the bottom of the screen telling us that Ms. Houston had died. No sense in interrupting children's programming for something that, let's face it, while it was newsworthy, it wasn't exactly earth-shattering. :

 

[ding12]

It was not news that couldn't have waited 30 minutes. And NBC properly waited until a commercial break during "Parenthood" to tell us who won some insignificant Republican primary.

I really don't care, because the results of these individual primaries don't amount to anything in the grand scheme of things.

Now if the scene left out of the show had been Lacey's favorite band and Lacey's parents talking about her infatuation with its lead singer, that would have been another matter entirely, but they were talking about clues in a murder investigation. You don't leave details out of a murder mystery.

On one of those sites, it was analyzed that 'Body of Proof' has likely possibility of cancellation.

Too bad as I liked the lead characters, although there wasn't enough character depth.

I didn't care for Lacey. She seemed too spoiled as a kid, not appreciative, and the mom-daughter issues made for a terrible personal storyline for the lead Dr. Hunt.

 

[LKellerIII]

The Big 3 networks have traditionally had a news first policy, meaning they break into regular programming for important stories. This has been going on since the dawn of television, so it's to be expected. I remember all the soap-opera fans screaming in anger during the Watergate Hearings - which (IIRC) all of the Big 3 ran gavel to gavel coverarge, effectively pre-empting the soaps for months.

It is a bit of an anachronism, now that we have 24/7 cable news networks, but I suspect the network news departments don't want to give up this power...it would be kind of like surrenduring their turf to Fox News, CNN, etc.

 

[landtuna]

IMHO, breaking into regularly scheduled programming for anything short of a presidential assassination is just tooting your own horn. If viewers are that interested in the outcome of a primary election there are several TV sources they can choose which have continuing coverage. Lacking cable they can wait a few minutes and get the whole story on their local late news (which is guaranteed to be among the top stories) or they can log into one of hundreds of sites on the Internet which will break the news. It is not necessary, nor does it make non-interested viewers happy when their favorite programs are interrupted for essentially news department promotion purposes.

 

[anotherguyTN]

I agree that something like a 9-11 type attack or the death of the president are the only times that the networks should break into regular programming. almost anything else shoud be run as a trailer or during a commercial break, even if it's on a show I don't care anything about.

 

[firepoint525]

The Big 3 networks have traditionally had a news first policy, meaning they break into regular programming for important stories. This has been going on since the dawn of television, so it's to be expected. I remember all the soap-opera fans screaming in anger during the Watergate Hearings - which (IIRC) all of the Big 3 ran gavel to gavel coverarge, effectively pre-empting the soaps for months.

Didn't the big three eventually work out some type of agreement, in which the three networks took turns airing coverage? I seem to recall that they eventually did this during Iran-Contra hearings. In essence, NBC had coverage for a day, then CBS the next day, then ABC, then it was NBC's turn again. Even though I don't watch soaps, and I was probably in school during Watergate hearings (unless it was in the summer), I could agree that gavel-to-gavel coverage of hearings is probably sleep-inducing. But I would probably say that about most soaps, too! ;D

 

[KeithE4]

The Big 3 networks have traditionally had a news first policy, meaning they break into regular programming for important stories. This has been going on since the dawn of television, so it's to be expected. I remember all the soap-opera fans screaming in anger during the Watergate Hearings - which (IIRC) all of the Big 3 ran gavel to gavel coverarge, effectively pre-empting the soaps for months.

Didn't the big three eventually work out some type of agreement, in which the three networks took turns airing coverage?

After the first two or three weeks (IIRC), NBC, CBS, and ABC did start alternating coverage of the Watergate hearings, mostly due to the squawking of soaps fans.

 

[Mario500]

ABC news interrupted one of the Peanuts Valentine's Day specials to tell us that Whitney Houston had died.  This was at about 7:15 p.m. CST that evening.  Even though those were reruns and children's programming, it would have made a lot more sense to just have a crawl across the bottom of the screen telling us that Ms. Houston had died.  No sense in interrupting children's programming for something that, let's face it, while it was newsworthy, it wasn't exactly earth-shattering. :

I don't consider "Peanuts" cartoons  "children's programming". More children than adults may love the animated "Peanuts" cartoons and advertisers for products made especially for children may buy the advertising time slots, but those cartoons were not made especially for children.

I don't use phrases such as "children's programming" and "adult programming" to describe any TV series or movies, not even the ones made especially for children or adults.

 

[imhomerjay]

You don't, but the real world does.

 

[DToTheJ]

IMHO, breaking into regularly scheduled programming for anything short of a presidential assassination is just tooting your own horn...

Two words: White Bronco.

 

[anotherguyTN]

The Big 3 networks have traditionally had a news first policy, meaning they break into regular programming for important stories. This has been going on since the dawn of television, so it's to be expected. I remember all the soap-opera fans screaming in anger during the Watergate Hearings - which (IIRC) all of the Big 3 ran gavel to gavel coverarge, effectively pre-empting the soaps for months.

Didn't the big three eventually work out some type of agreement, in which the three networks took turns airing coverage?

After the first two or three weeks (IIRC), NBC, CBS, and ABC did start alternating coverage of the Watergate hearings, mostly due to the squawking of soaps fans.

The Watergate hearings also threw the schedules off on game shows as well. It was where the guests on shows with celebrity panelists or players would change in the middle of the week, and I think that on Match Game they made jokes about it.

 

[DToTheJ]

There's an interesting thread over on the Classic TV board recapping all of the live TV news break-ins one person has encountered in their lifetime... and it starts right around 1995 so no "white Bronco chase"...