• 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

NBC to pay $1,000,000 for Paris Hilton interview?

jal41 said:
If this is true, the credibility of NBC News is gone, because creditible news outlets do not pay for interviews.
Click to expand...

I thought the credibility of NBC News went out the window with the Virginia Tech's lunatic getting exposure on their outlet from beyond the grave...

With that said, I'm surprised it's NBC and not ABC that's hankering for a big interview with a celeb in the news.
 
I would doubt that the "news" division would pay for an interview, but there are ways around this.

For instance, if "Matt Lauer" does an interview he is part of the "entertainment" side and can pay for an interview. And if the news division uses this interview why not, it's "all in the family" so to speak. Also "60 Minutes" has been noted for not paying for interviews but paying the same people "consulting fees."

Other network news shows have paid for "guest accomodations," "salary at worked missed at time and a half," well you guys get the point, there are all sorts of ways for people to get "compensated" for their time without actually having to recieve a check or a wad of money. And the days of getting it "under the table" certainly are no means over
 
If you disapprove of this sort of thing (which I do), then don't watch the interview. If they got lousy ratings, NBC would lose money on this and others will be discouraged from these shenanigans. Being a realist, I must admit that this crap will probably garner good ratings - but I refuse to join those with IQs of <100 in supporting this garbage. So, my plea is this: even if you are interested in this, just blow off the interview and watch the various recaps on ET, Inside Hollywood, E!, etc. You will not miss a thing.

The whole career of Paris Hilton goes to show how low we, as a society, have sunk into the muck. Famous for being rich and famous - and nothing more. Blleeccchhhh! :p
 
If you disapprove of this sort of thing (which I do), then don't watch the interview. If they got lousy ratings, NBC would lose money on this and others will be discouraged from these shenanigans. Being a realist, I must admit that this crap will probably garner good ratings - but I refuse to join those with IQs of <100 in supporting this garbage. So, my plea is this: even if you are interested in this, just blow off the interview and watch the various recaps on ET, Inside Hollywood, E!, etc. You will not miss a thing.


I agree completely. Unfortunately, NBC will get good ratings as our nation seems obcessed with what the celebrities, sports figures, hollywood crowd do and "think" and will flock to the TV set to see Ms. Hilton spill her guts on national television. NBC will also probably be able to sell that time slot for a pretty penny thus making back their money. Only in America, if you're rich and famous you can get paid a million dollars for being in prison, and the nation will stop what's it's doing to watch. I know I won't be watching.
 
Or theres this angle. America (not me) would rather watch Paris Hilton than other network programs? How can we make a star out of someone who has done absolutely nothing but be born into a fortune?

Hmm, think about it,, Paris Hilton, who has no real talent or great insight, is more interesting than what other programming the networks will provide. Who should be more embarrassed, television or America?

PLEASE GIVE ME ONE CHANNEL THAT PROVIDES NEWS, NOT COMMENTARY, BUT JUST PLAIN FACTS!!!!!
And while you are at it, how about letting writers write shows instead of censors and lawyers and consultants. Art by comittee never works.

Thats my rant,, thanks for listening.
 
Hmm, think about it,, Paris Hilton, who has no real talent or great insight, is more interesting than what other programming the networks will provide. Who should be more embarrassed, television or America? PLEASE GIVE ME ONE CHANNEL THAT PROVIDES NEWS, NOT COMMENTARY, BUT JUST PLAIN FACTS!!!!!


You make some good points in your post. However, I'd say that both the networks and America should be embarrassed. The networks for allowing television to truly become a vast wasteland with nothing worth watching; and America for being so desperate to watch anything that they'll settle for that wasteland rather than simply turning the set off and go do something else.

Your point about the news is right on. Nothing wrong with commentary at the end of a newscast, as Eric Severid did at the end of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite back in the 1970's which was labeled as commentary, but the rest of the program should just be the facts, no opinion ( I do think that "Uncle Walter" did put his spin on issues at times, but if he'd been completely faithful to his profession as a newsman he'd have offered no opinions). Same with local television news. Shows like Meet the Press or Face the Nation are fine as you get to hear the newsmaker in their own words answer questions (even if they are slanted questions the guest has their say, but the endless chatter of news/talk shows on cable CNN, MSNBC, and FOX is not news, just glorified talkradio on television, which is entertaining, but not news. The upsetting thing is many people get their news from some odd places, some get their news from Jay Leno and David Letterman during their monologues, some get their news from talk radio stars like Rush, Hannity, Air America, etc, and now cable TV's talkers such as O'reilly and yes Oprah, etc. Talk shows, if you think about it, are sort of like a "secular church service" as the host is essentially preaching to you their point of view of the news. He or she is trying to sell or convert you to their way of thinking about a given issue. These shows can be entertaining and get you thinking IF you have used other sources to actually get the news so that you have read or heard what actually went on, but if the talkshow is your ONLY source of the news, then you are only getting their point of view and may not get the real context of what's going on. Relating this back to a church sermon, it is the reason the pastor has the congregation read along in their Bibles as he reads, so that they are seeing where the passage is used so that they'll have a better understanding of the context the passage was being used in, which can make a big difference if just reading some random sentence by itself out of context.
 
I don't think no television or cable news network should ever have to pay someone
for a interview, this is not "good journalism" and yes, credability is at stake, but
things have radically changed in media circles, and to me, it's sad.
 
BRNout said:
If you disapprove of this sort of thing (which I do), then don't watch the interview. If they got lousy ratings, NBC would lose money on this and others will be discouraged from these shenanigans. Being a realist, I must admit that this crap will probably garner good ratings - but I refuse to join those with IQs of <100 in supporting this garbage. So, my plea is this: even if you are interested in this, just blow off the interview and watch the various recaps on ET, Inside Hollywood, E!, etc. You will not miss a thing.

The whole career of Paris Hilton goes to show how low we, as a society, have sunk into the muck. Famous for being rich and famous - and nothing more. Blleeccchhhh! :p
Click to expand...

You are kidding right? Have you ever worked in television, esp. the business side? The ratings will go thru the roof, and since she will be let out during July sweeps, NBC will blow its competition out of the water.

That doesn't mean I'm condoning the practice. It's just the reality of broadcasting. No sizable portion of the audience is going to view this as a negative and hold an NBC boycott on the day of the interview. That's about as realistic as the Weekly World News going belly up because intelligent Americans have better things to do than read supermarket tabloids! Ha. Yeah, right! Tell me another one.

Now, let's get everyone to boycott gasoline purchases because it's so expensive! ::)

I'm definitely going to watch because Paris is the epitome of charm, sophistication, intelligence and good manners. I want my kids to someday know that they will be a part of history! Wow, Paris, thank you for everything you do! (sniff) :p
 
MikefromDelaware said:
Hmm, think about it,, Paris Hilton, who has no real talent or great insight, is more interesting than what other programming the networks will provide. Who should be more embarrassed, television or America? PLEASE GIVE ME ONE CHANNEL THAT PROVIDES NEWS, NOT COMMENTARY, BUT JUST PLAIN FACTS!!!!!


You make some good points in your post. However, I'd say that both the networks and America should be embarrassed. The networks for allowing television to truly become a vast wasteland with nothing worth watching; and America for being so desperate to watch anything that they'll settle for that wasteland rather than simply turning the set off and go do something else.

Your point about the news is right on. Nothing wrong with commentary at the end of a newscast, as Eric Severid did at the end of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite back in the 1970's which was labeled as commentary, but the rest of the program should just be the facts, no opinion ( I do think that "Uncle Walter" did put his spin on issues at times, but if he'd been completely faithful to his profession as a newsman he'd have offered no opinions). Same with local television news. Shows like Meet the Press or Face the Nation are fine as you get to hear the newsmaker in their own words answer questions (even if they are slanted questions the guest has their say, but the endless chatter of news/talk shows on cable CNN, MSNBC, and FOX is not news, just glorified talkradio on television, which is entertaining, but not news. The upsetting thing is many people get their news from some odd places, some get their news from Jay Leno and David Letterman during their monologues, some get their news from talk radio stars like Rush, Hannity, Air America, etc, and now cable TV's talkers such as O'reilly and yes Oprah, etc. Talk shows, if you think about it, are sort of like a "secular church service" as the host is essentially preaching to you their point of view of the news. He or she is trying to sell or convert you to their way of thinking about a given issue. These shows can be entertaining and get you thinking IF you have used other sources to actually get the news so that you have read or heard what actually went on, but if the talkshow is your ONLY source of the news, then you are only getting their point of view and may not get the real context of what's going on. Relating this back to a church sermon, it is the reason the pastor has the congregation read along in their Bibles as he reads, so that they are seeing where the passage is used so that they'll have a better understanding of the context the passage was being used in, which can make a big difference if just reading some random sentence by itself out of context.
Click to expand...

You're being too much of an idealist. If you think that listeners who listen to talkshows are the only ones who don't get the real context of what's going on, where are they going to go to get real context, except (one exception only), C-SPAN. You think that media outlets in America aren't as biased as talk show hosts? Sorry, man, but there's no such thing as balanced news. I worked in it for years, trust me.

These shows can be entertaining and get you thinking IF you have used other sources to actually get the news so that you have read or heard what actually went on

Again, I have to disagree. How can you really read or hear what actually went on? It's all second-hand information. You can't know what's actually going on unless you are there witnessing it yourself. For instance, years ago, I was told very firmly by my news boss that I was NOT to air interviews I did with people who used hear-say as the basis of what they were telling me. You know, such things as, "You know, I really wasn't there, but I heard that this family next door are arsonists."

However, let me ask you how many times you hear hear-say in the "news" today? HMMM. How about EVERYWHERE? It's frustrating because viewers/listeners take it as the gospel truth. (And by the way, a talk show host I listen to on the radio regularly, often says, "Don't believe everything you hear, read or watch, including what I say."
 
Well unless you are a Nielsen family or fill our the Nielsen diary every so often, it doesn't matter what you watch or don't watch, cause you're particular viewing habbit doesn't matter.

Nielsen ratings aren't even a random sample, so we are really at the mercy of the Nielsen company not any individual person. After all I have never filled out a Nielsen diary and being a single male would never be likely to asked to, so in all my years of watching TV, anything I watched hasn't counted toward squat.

If you want to make your voice heard you need to WRITE a letter, not email but a physical letter. Companies pay little if any attention to emails as they are so easily forged form different addresses
 
Or just pay Paris $1.1 million to lose her top during the interview.
 
ABC and NBC have declined to interview her, and CNN's "Larry King Live" will
have her first television interview Wednesday.
 
You're being too much of an idealist. If you think that listeners who listen to talkshows are the only ones who don't get the real context of what's going on, where are they going to go to get real context, except (one exception only), C-SPAN. You think that media outlets in America aren't as biased as talk show hosts? Sorry, man, but there's no such thing as balanced news. I worked in it for years, trust me.

Again, I have to disagree. How can you really read or hear what actually went on? It's all second-hand information. You can't know what's actually going on unless you are there witnessing it yourself. For instance, years ago, I was told very firmly by my news boss that I was NOT to air interviews I did with people who used hear-say as the basis of what they were telling me. You know, such things as, "You know, I really wasn't there, but I heard that this family next door are arsonists."

Reading or listening to various sources, say the Washington Times (conservative) vs the Washington Post (liberal) versions of a news story. CBS news or NPR news (liberal) vs Fox news (conservative). It does take some interpretation as they all do offer their spin, but my guess is the truth will float to the top in towards the middle ground rather than at either extreme liberal or conservative. However, your are correct there is no such thing as balanced news. After seeing the movie "Wag the Dog" it's hard to say what and if any of the news we see is actually real news or made up other than if the a version of the story appears in print and on major radio/TV network newscasts then probably the event did occur, but as to what really happened in the event is another matter, bringing us back to checking various sources.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom