ABC's State of the Union coverage...did you notice?

[WMC2005]

Charlie Gibson opened ABC's coverage with some comments and mentioned that Elizabeth Vargas and Diane Sawyer were also on hand. The three of them were shown on-screen although all 3 in different locations. Charlie spoke, Elizabeth spoke and even George Stephonopolos (excuse the spelling) came on and spoke. Elizabeth also briefly mentioned Bob Woodruff and Doug Vogt.

Eventually, we had the speech.

Following the speech, a few minutes ago, Elizabeth came back with some observations as did Charlie and George S.

What the hell happened to Diane Sawyer?? Did anyone else notice she was introduced at the top of the broadcast and she hasnt been seen or heard from once???

I should note, as I write this at about 1020pm, that coverage goes to about 11pm. We are currently seeing the Democratic response from the Governor of Virginia.

If anyone sees Diane Sawyer, tell her it's ok to come out and play.

 

[Garrett]

She's on right now...

> Charlie Gibson opened ABC's coverage with some comments and
> mentioned that Elizabeth Vargas and Diane Sawyer were also
> on hand. The three of them were shown on-screen although
> all 3 in different locations. Charlie spoke, Elizabeth
> spoke and even George Stephonopolos (excuse the spelling)
> came on and spoke. Elizabeth also briefly mentioned Bob
> Woodruff and Doug Vogt.
>
> Eventually, we had the speech.
>
> Following the speech, a few minutes ago, Elizabeth came back
> with some observations as did Charlie and George S.
>
> What the hell happened to Diane Sawyer?? Did anyone else
> notice she was introduced at the top of the broadcast and
> she hasnt been seen or heard from once???
>
> I should note, as I write this at about 1020pm, that
> coverage goes to about 11pm. We are currently seeing the
> Democratic response from the Governor of Virginia.
>
> If anyone sees Diane Sawyer, tell her it's ok to come out
> and play.
>

 

[WMC2005]

Diane Sawyer

Diane is finally on at approximately 1050pm to talk about the healthcare aspects of the President's speech and viewer/email responses.

She comes in after a commercial break with the announcer saying "Once again, Diane Sawyer"

 

[RobertMoore]

I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

...It was a little boring and too partisan. However the Democratic response was an improvement and the analysis/debates on CNN and ABC was top notch.

 

[RockManAC]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

> ...It was a little boring and too partisan. However the
> Democratic response was an improvement and the
> analysis/debates on CNN and ABC was top notch.
>

I wish NBC would have done a bit more analysis of the Dem response instead of going to a repeat of Scrubs. (And thus forcing me to re-arrange the program log)

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[notalkallstatic]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

> I wish NBC would have done a bit more analysis of the Dem
> response instead of going to a repeat of Scrubs. (And thus
> forcing me to re-arrange the program log)
>
> -A
>

I know what you mean. My log was a mess by the time it was done, and what makes it worst, I had a computer crash in the middle of this. So, it looked nasty on the air. I havne't had a night like that in a long time. First a live shot that was complete (BLEEP) that I had to take care of (instead of having the photographer operating the mast, he had the anchor doing it, and I believe the anchor had the mast pointed in the wrong direction...but they do no wrong), computer crash, and NBC going to Scrubs. Grrr...what a night!

 

[KML0224]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

What do you mean by "operating the mast"? Huh?<P ID="signature">______________
#13 Dan Marino...2005 Football Hall Of Fame Inductee </P>

 

[JeeperOne]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

Hi everyone:

> > ...It was a little boring and too partisan. However the
> > Democratic response was an improvement and the
> > analysis/debates on CNN and ABC was top notch.
> >
>
> I wish NBC would have done a bit more analysis of the Dem
> response instead of going to a repeat of Scrubs. (And thus
> forcing me to re-arrange the program log)

Lest you forget. They have a cable channel for that. TWO of 'em as a matter of fact.

Cheers

Pat<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[dampier]

Re: Why Do We Watch These Things

> ...It was a little boring and too partisan. However the
> Democratic response was an improvement and the
> analysis/debates on CNN and ABC was top notch.

I sat through it last night and I, as usual, wondered why I bothered wasting an hour of my life for meaningless dreck. In fact, I'm surprised the networks haven't dumped these to the cable news channels along with a lot of the rest of the political stage-managed stuff.

I felt exactly the same way about this through Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2. Take a 15 minute speech and stretch it out to an hour because of the stage managed applause lines and other mechanics.

None of it proved insightful or compelling.

As far as the coverage that followed, I rapid-fired through as many networks as I could:

NBC - David Gregory was probably the best thing on NBC helping to put the speech and its priorities in context with the other doin's in DC.

CBS - Absolutely nothing stood out at all.

ABC - George Stephanopolous still irritates me. He's not a journalist but he plays one on TV. I'm sorry, but this network borrowing of past politically connected folks to be remade into instacorrespondents is just stupid.

CNN - The confusing world of the Situation 360. They combined elements from everything and threw it at us. The commentary was at least from some seasoned people who have been through dozens and dozens of these. That was what kept me on CNN the longest.

MSNBC - Chris Matthews seriously needs some time off. Amateur Hour with pundits for everything. Matthews most 'insightful' comment of the night was that he thought Hillary was chewing gum! Shoddy, shoddy shoddy, and Matthews is returning to the bad old days of wasting viewers time with his endless uninformed opinions about everything. Bottom of the barrel guest pundits didn't help either.

Fox News - I needed Kleenex to clean up after the gushing lovefest was over.

Predictable coverage of predictable speeches with predictably disconnected Americans predictably running to Blockbuster so they didn't have to spend any time with it.

 

[RockManAC]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

> I know what you mean. My log was a mess by the time it was
> done, and what makes it worst, I had a computer crash in the
> middle of this. So, it looked nasty on the air. I havne't
> had a night like that in a long time.

Eek.. What are you guys using for automation? I tried accidentally put in the time of the break of scrubs in as "20:xx:xxx" instead of "21:xx:xx" and ended up triggering it when I hit OK... Thank God for the bypass switcher

> First a live shot that
> was complete (BLEEP) that I had to take care of (instead of
> having the photographer operating the mast, he had the
> anchor doing it, and I believe the anchor had the mast
> pointed in the wrong direction...but they do no wrong),

Your anchors know how to do that? Hell... Half our photogs can't figure out the live truck.

Btw.. I had 1 live shot where we actually got a BETTER signal pointing AWAY from the station (and thus bouncing the signal off a building)

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>

 

[RockManAC]

Re: I have one thing to say about The State of the Union coverage...

> What do you mean by "operating the mast"? Huh?
>

The mast is the big antenna on-top of the live truck... You have to rotate it around to tune in a live shot.

-A<P ID="signature">______________

</P>