-
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
MSNBC - Was this really necessary?
- Thread starter MarcB
- Start date
MarcB said:
agreed, part of me says "it's nice for someone to do this" but the other part says "this is just MSNBC in a cost cutting situation not having to pay live onair talent to cover the anniversery events" This is the third or fouth time they've done it, and as long as they want to cut corners and not cover the events of the present on 9/11, they'll continue to do this. This is the same network that is just getting in to live 10pm ET programming; up until several months ago, preempts primetime fridays for it's documentary programming (and still does on holidays) and fills the weekend hours with tons of documentary programming. For MSNBC, it's expected they do this.
They do that every year. I think it's a very nice way of remembering what happened personally.
Mainedude2007 said:
The fact is that NBC News IS covering all 9/11 events. It's all available at MSNBC.com, and will show up during the evening news. Lots of staffing in New York, Pennsylvania, DC, and other related areas. So I don't think it's necessarily a cost cutting move. If something of significance happens, they can switch live to the location. Until then, they're better with relevent programming.
It is hard to believe that it has been 9 years. I was getting ready to leave to head for the shoppe when CNBC reported the first plane. While they showed the smoking building I saw the second plane hit. Then a short time later the Pentagon, and then the crash in Pennsylvania.
It is very painful for some people to see and to remember, just as every December 7 it is not easy to watch Pearl Harbor being attacked.
As far as I am concerned it is a very necessary part of history, as much as I detest MSNBC, and it is important to show what exactly happened, and to remember who did that to us.
I will not go into where I think solemn observances should be held in the future.
It is very painful for some people to see and to remember, just as every December 7 it is not easy to watch Pearl Harbor being attacked.
As far as I am concerned it is a very necessary part of history, as much as I detest MSNBC, and it is important to show what exactly happened, and to remember who did that to us.
I will not go into where I think solemn observances should be held in the future.
I think too many people are forgetting those events. As far as I'm concerned, they can not be replayed enough. We seem to be forgetting who attacked us that day and who has declared a "holy war" against us. We need to be reminded who our true enemy really is.
MarcB said:
I agree with you. I was actually going to come in today, this morning and open up a topic but I didn't know what to say. Fortunately I didn't have anyone that day, but yeah, I was thinking the same thing. They could do shows commemorating the event, but showing the actual crash every year it's not a good way of remembering it, we have seen the footage over and over again. God bless the victims and their families of this tragedy.
S
searadiofreak
Guest
I completely support the "as it happened" coverage on MSNBC. It is a great reminder of how dangerous of a situation we are still in. Also, interesting to note the inaccurate reports during the first hour or two. At the same time, the reporters/anchors were being just cautious enough not to jump to conclusions. It is historical, and that makes it relevant. NBC kept the live coverage of the JFK assassination as well, although it has not been shown for years. However, that coverage is now considered historical and one of the best documents of that sad day. Media repeats of "as it happened" are critical for one more reason. There is no spin. This is actually how the event was reported. This is important. To the OP, would you prefer we just move on and forget it?
I can't see a problem with just replaying the coverage.
As long as there is an on/off switch or a channel selector and you have some choice in the matter.
Avoiding it is quite possible, if for whatever reason you don't want to see it.
If they were throwing new commentary into it, or piecing together facts about what went on in hindsight to pin blame on people in hindsight, then that would be different.
As long as there is an on/off switch or a channel selector and you have some choice in the matter.
Avoiding it is quite possible, if for whatever reason you don't want to see it.
If they were throwing new commentary into it, or piecing together facts about what went on in hindsight to pin blame on people in hindsight, then that would be different.
Only that they LACK 'play-by-play' (an awkward way to put it). I tuned in to History Channel at 9pm last night, and they had narrator-free amateur footage of the plane crashes, the evacuations, and the tower crashes--everything, all spliced together according to the known time-line of events.MarcB said:
Your complaint is still fairly petty. What is MSNBC supposed to do, run some other channel's footage?
Nate Wesley said:
Yep...that was one of the documentaries. I think that was one of the more controversial because it showed people jumping. They also ran one examining the many conspiracy theories, and another on the architecture of the buildings and why they came down. No shortage of approaches to the story, and they ran them all. I see they've returned to regular programming today.
Honestly, I can't believe that people are objective to the network's showing ACTUAL events as they happened. God knows that we get enough spin from the likes of O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc. Many of the quotes on those shows are taken WAY out of context...just saw a Jon Stewart clip showing some of the worst examples.
I support MSNBC's showing of ACTUAL (not heavily edited) footage. Our children should watch these, once they are old enough to handle it. We don't ever want to repeat this again.
I support MSNBC's showing of ACTUAL (not heavily edited) footage. Our children should watch these, once they are old enough to handle it. We don't ever want to repeat this again.
M
Mario500
Guest
MarcB said:
I did not think it was necessary for MSNBC to do such programming on Saturday, as it reminds me of what many news reporters and news presenters have done to an ordinary calendar date since 2001: they have forced their audiences to remember the eleventh day of September for a series of events in 2001 rather than just a day on the calendar upon which a new day begins every year. I never liked how the events themselves are referenced by the numbers representing the calendar date on which they occurred or just by the month in alphabetical form and the day in numeral form without the year.
As for the program itself, it could have been placed on a different cable and satellite TV network and made part of a program similar to "JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America" on the History Channel with reports from various networks and local stations. A cable and satellite TV network specializing in local and national newscasts from the past and present would be a better fit for the programming presented by MSNBC on Saturday and it could be done occasionally.
September 11th or 9/11 will never be just another "new day". You can choose to recognize the life-changing, historical events that happened or not. For most people, that date will forever be marked by the the tragic events of the coordinated terrorist attacks in NYC and Washington, DC and the horrific loss of nearly 3,000 Americans. I can offer up many criticisms of network news organizations, but this would not be one of them.
I have yet to see "as it happened" coverage. I didn't know what happened until the end of the day. I was at the library first and then out walking for exercise. Being in the part of the library where the Internet computers were (to read comic strips as I usually did at that library), I sort of knew what was going on, but not really, and with the new developments every few minutes, I didn't want to know more.
I've seen some documentaries and a TV-movie, but I still don't really know what it was like to see Dan and Tom and Peter.
I'm kind of glad I didn't follow all that, because it sounded worse than it was--except I had no idea about how bad things really were at the World Trade Center until 5 that afternoon. And, yes, without ever hearing anyone say it, I realized it was 9-11 ... and you call 911 in an emergency ... and it doesn't get much worse than this. I also returned to that library and read newspapers, and some columns by Art Buchwald which were related to this sort of thing didn't seem funny that day.
I've seen some documentaries and a TV-movie, but I still don't really know what it was like to see Dan and Tom and Peter.
I'm kind of glad I didn't follow all that, because it sounded worse than it was--except I had no idea about how bad things really were at the World Trade Center until 5 that afternoon. And, yes, without ever hearing anyone say it, I realized it was 9-11 ... and you call 911 in an emergency ... and it doesn't get much worse than this. I also returned to that library and read newspapers, and some columns by Art Buchwald which were related to this sort of thing didn't seem funny that day.
- Status