Seems pretty obvious. He assumed that they would run his piece and somebody higher up said no.Casablance said:Ed Shultz interviewed ABC's investigative reporter Brian Ross today and Ross stated that his investigative report that the Federal government had tapped into his phone conversations. The report was to air this evening on World News Tonight but it did not. It only appears on ABC's webpage - hidden under the "investigative" link to Brian Ross.Wonder why Ross went on the air today to promote a story which ABC was not going to run as he noted?
It was covered in today's edition of USA Today.http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/05/abc_feds_may_be.htmlCasablance said:Wonder why Ross went on the air today to promote a story which ABC was not going to run as he noted?
Probably because he has a low regard for professional standards and thinks it's perfectly acceptable to complain about the decisions of his management in a public forum.Casablance said:Wonder why Ross went on the air today to promote a story which ABC was not going to run as he noted?
Who said he "complained?" Did you hear him "complain?"Sounds like some producer decided that the story was too "inside baseball" and that they needed the time for a soft "human interest" story. The story appeared on the ABC News web site and the last time I looked it was still there.Probably because he has a low regard for professional standards and thinks it's perfectly acceptable to complain about the decisions of his management in a public forum.
No, I didn't hear him complain. Like 99.99999% of America I don't listen to Ed Shultz on a regular basis.If Ross went on Shultz before the story was meant to air and it ended up not airing, then it sounds like ABC News doesn't really know what they're doing. If he went on Shultz after it was supposed to air, then I question his professionalism.Scribbler said:Who said he "complained?" Did you hear him "complain?"
Actually it's 97.136865%Coolidge2006 said:Like 99.99999% of America I don't listen to Ed Shultz on a regular basis.Scribbler said:Who said he "complained?" Did you hear him "complain?"
By that definition, Nazis were very professional.Of course, the I-vas-only-following-orders defense didn't work too well at Nuremberg.Sound: (WHACK!!)Professional: "Thank you, sir. May I have another!"
Unfortunately, they DO know what they're doing: getting ratings by running News You Can Use and Human Interest stories instead of Within The Beltway stories that don't interest the Average Viewer.Coolidge2006 said:If Ross went on Shultz before the story was meant to air and it ended up not airing, then it sounds like ABC News doesn't really know what they're doing. If he went on Shultz after it was supposed to air, then I question his professionalism.
Whether the Ross story was "Within The Beltway" or not, there wasn't any substance to it. It would seem that would be the more likely reasoning behind it not appearing on World News Tonight. Presumably no one posting here is in a position to know the actual reasoning behind the decision.Scribbler said:Unfortunately, they DO know what they're doing: getting ratings by running News You Can Use and Human Interest stories instead of Within The Beltway stories that don't interest the Average Viewer.
So why did you say that under one scenerio it sounds as if ABC News didn't know what it was doing? Sounds to me like Ross just mentioned a story that involved him, but wasn't deemed worthy of being on World News Tonight. To adopt your way of thinking, ABC News made the right decision since there "wasn't any substance" to the story. But how did Ross mentioning a story that DID appear on the ABC News web site make him "unprofessional?"Coolidge2006 said:Whether the Ross story was "Within The Beltway" or not, there wasn't any substance to it. It would seem that would be the more likely reasoning behind it not appearing on World News Tonight. Presumably no one posting here is in a position to know the actual reasoning behind the decision.
That would depend on when he did it, as I already stated. If Ross is going on Shultz after the story didn't run, he's second guessing his management in a public forum. I would consider that unprofessional.Scribbler said:But how did Ross mentioning a story that DID appear on the ABC News web site make him "unprofessional?"
So it's only "professional" to mention stories that have appeared on World News Tonight, even if you've covered another story and it's appeared on the ABC News web site? That makes absolutely no sense. You've admitted that you didn't hear Ross on Schultz, so you have zero evidence that he "complained" about anything. Brian Ross is at least as professional as any other reporter that I'm familiar with.Coolidge2006 said:That would depend on when he did it, as I already stated. If Ross is going on Shultz after the story didn't run, he's second guessing his management in a public forum. I would consider that unprofessional.Scribbler said:But how did Ross mentioning a story that DID appear on the ABC News web site make him "unprofessional?"
Since that's not my argument, whether or not your statement makes sense is not relevant.Scribbler said:So it's only "professional" to mention stories that have appeared on World News Tonight, even if you've covered them and they've appeared on the ABC News web site? That makes absolutely no sense.
I never claimed to have any evidence. In fact it was obvious that I was speculating and my statements reflect that.If you want to have a discussion try to respond to what I actually wrote rather than responding to your own characterizations.Scribbler said:You've admitted that you didn't hear Ross on Schultz, so you have zero evidence that he "complained" about anything. Brian Ross is at least as professional as any other reporter that I'm familiar with.
My point is that it WAS "professional" for Ross to talk about his story, whether or not he was speaking before OR after the story didn't appear on World News Tonight -- especially since it did appear on the ABC News web site. Your speculation about his "complaining" about it not appearing on WNT is based on nothing, so why speculate in the first place?Coolidge2006 said:Since that's not my argument, whether or not your statement makes sense is not relevant.Scribbler said:So it's only "professional" to mention stories that have appeared on World News Tonight, even if you've covered them and they've appeared on the ABC News web site? That makes absolutely no sense.I never claimed to have any evidence. In fact it was obvious that I was speculating and my statements reflect that.If you want to have a discussion try to respond to what I actually wrote rather than responding to your own characterizations.Scribbler said:You've admitted that you didn't hear Ross on Schultz, so you have zero evidence that he "complained" about anything. Brian Ross is at least as professional as any other reporter that I'm familiar with.
Well, that all depends on what he said. Frankly the idea that a journalist is appearing on an opinion based program to discuss what he is reporting on is questionable regardless of the specifics.Scribbler said:My point is that it WAS "professional" for Ross to talk about his story, whether or not he was speaking before OR after the story didn't appear on World News Tonight
I haven't stated or implied anything of the kind. Try rereading the thread and using some rational thought rather than jumping to unfounded conclusions.fred flintstone said:Coolidge apparently believes any one in broadcasting must (1) Be a whore and sell out completely. (2) Be devoid of any personal standards of integrity. (3) Check his brains at the door. No wonder broadcasting is such an unprincipled business and no wonder the business is in trouble.