-
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
WSM-AM
- Thread starter JeremyAndrews
- Start date
deltas69 said:the reason the big networks gave such little response is summed up in one WORD.."VOTES". The national media/Washington-New York corridor is 99.9% liberal..and could care less about a bunch of southern redneck white voters who are drowning or up to their armpits in water..and who vote CONSERVATIVE.....let water get up to the bony ankles of Harry Reid or Nana Pelosi...and see how fast a 24 hour news team is camped in their front door...
Nashville/Davidson Co. is essentially coterminous with the 6th Congressional District. This is a reliably Democratic district, where Obama stickers considerably outnumber McCain stickers.
(it is decidedly different in many of the bordering counties)
_________________________________________________
Increasingly, we're tuning out those media that actually send reporters out to find news. We're tuning in those media that look at the story someone else found, sit in the studio, and complain how it's all the fault of the other side of the aisle.
And as we do so, the media that actually send reporters out to find news find they have fewer advertisers -- and fewer resources. Should we really be surprised when sometimes, they miss something?
Scott Fybush said:
I've not worked *for* a newsroom, but as a station engineer I've spent an awful lot of time working *in* newsrooms.
The news industry is awfully competitive. An assignment editor who routinely made decisions based on their politics would find their numbers -- and then, their chances of remaining employed -- in gradual decline.
Newsrooms *are* biased. They're biased in favor of reporting what, in their judgement, will attract the largest audience, with the resources available.
They're in a hurry. If you want a clean, polished newscast, it's going to take some time to put it together. There *will* be mistakes -- *honest* errors.
Mistakes were made in the national coverage of the Nashville flood. I might guess NY editors, not familiar with the geography of Nashville, didn't understand just how widespread a disaster this was. I would imagine most of our local media were too busy trying to cover the story locally to notice how poorly the national media were doing.
The Nashville flooding didn't happen in a vacuum. It had the misfortune to be going on at the same time as two other huge stories, the Times Square attempted bombing and the Gulf oil spill. That's life, sometimes. There were lots of times on the assignment desk that we gave big play to a relatively unimportant story simply because it was the only thing of any consequence going on that day, and plenty of other days when important, interesting stories got less attention than they deserved simply because there were other stories happening that required attention and resources.
It may well be that even so, the Nashville story got less play than it should have. But I'm extremely uneasy about trying to read it as being all about politics - especially when the Gulf oil spill, one of the two stories that got bigger play, wasn't exactly happening in the NY-Washington corridor, either.
[/quote]
w9wi said:
Speaking as someone who once was a NY news editor, I can tell you that those newsrooms rely on affiliates and local reporters to help with a distant story. I get the impression, piecing this all together in hindight, that even the people in Nashville had no idea how widespread the flooding was until after the rain stopped late Sunday afternoon. Then they sent up helicopters, and that was the first time anyone really knew the devastation. By Monday, it was clear what the story was, and NBC and ABC were covering it, led once again by the reporting submitted by their affiliates. But during the weekend, it was mainly a weather story, not a flood story.
Looking beyond the "New York newsrooms," keep in mind that both CNN and the Weather Channel (owned by NBC) are based in Atlanta. Of course it didn't rain a drop in Atlanta that weekend, but they were certainly closer in proximity than New York. But keep in mind that these networks were doing bang-up coverage of the oil spill that was further south of New York than Nashville. So I wouldn't take this personally (or politically, as some are doing.)
w9wi said:
Maybe I'm misinterpretting, but I don't think this thread is about audiences, or what audiences are interested in. It's about receiving attention. And in my view, that's the wrong reason to cover a story. Otherwise, you're chasing ambulances and not covering the real stories having to do with issues that affect people. Once the flood waters receded, there wasn't much more to do except cover a clean up. And they receded fairly quickly. What's the point in that?
Nock said:
Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?
I thought this was about sending Brian Williams to Nashville. I didn't see Brian Williams doing a stand-up in front of Tiger's house or reporting live from Augusta.
I don't think it's about the amount of people impacted. I said a factor is if people are interested. If I live 60 miles outside of Nashville, I'm probably not interested in their weather. Even if it caused a lot of their residents a large amount of hardship. That's not my view. It's human nature.
What I'm seeing now in coverage reminds me of something Disney did after a hurricane destroyed part of the Magic Kingdom. It became more of a PR campaign for the park, and the grand re-opening they were going to have.
NOCK stated:
"Okay so i get the amount of people it impacts as to who gets what kind of coverage. Explain Tiger Woods then?"
BIG A stated:
"Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?"
BIG A previously stated:
"I mean, Sean Hannity had more of a reason to come to Nashville when the Tea Party was at Opryland. I'm amazed that no one brought up the fact that the hotel where Sarah Palin spoke was under 4 feet of water. She can see the Cumberland from her porch! That would have nationalized the story. Crossfade between scenes of the ballroom then and now. Otherwise, there's not much for him to say. Especially when the Mayor and the Governor are Democrats, and they did a pretty good job. It would be more Sean's style to report how the liberals screwed up."
TIBBS assks to BIG A:
"Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?" Tisk, tisk, Mr. NY Editor ~ you're assuming what Hannity would say and do. Isn't that opinion, not fact?
"Okay so i get the amount of people it impacts as to who gets what kind of coverage. Explain Tiger Woods then?"
BIG A stated:
"Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?"
BIG A previously stated:
"I mean, Sean Hannity had more of a reason to come to Nashville when the Tea Party was at Opryland. I'm amazed that no one brought up the fact that the hotel where Sarah Palin spoke was under 4 feet of water. She can see the Cumberland from her porch! That would have nationalized the story. Crossfade between scenes of the ballroom then and now. Otherwise, there's not much for him to say. Especially when the Mayor and the Governor are Democrats, and they did a pretty good job. It would be more Sean's style to report how the liberals screwed up."
TIBBS assks to BIG A:
"Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?" Tisk, tisk, Mr. NY Editor ~ you're assuming what Hannity would say and do. Isn't that opinion, not fact?
Tibbs2 said:
You tell me: Did Hannity come to Nashville for flood coverage? Did any of the show hosts from Fox? I'm just askin.'
I think I characterized his M.O. pretty well. If I'm wrong, show me.
Speaking of Hannity, isn't he friends with a lot of Nashville singers like Sara Evans? Wouldn't he be the most likely to want to come to Nashville? What happened? His NY bias get in the way? I'm just askin.'
[/quote]
Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?
[/quote]
Please explain the difference because Brian Williams and company (the media) DID give it attention to the point of annoying. Who cared, but we heard it for how many weeks? Every move he made? See it is not about real hard core news, it's back to the "if it bleeds it leads"
Nock
Are you equating gossip and flood coverage? Do you really need to have the difference explained?
[/quote]
Please explain the difference because Brian Williams and company (the media) DID give it attention to the point of annoying. Who cared, but we heard it for how many weeks? Every move he made? See it is not about real hard core news, it's back to the "if it bleeds it leads"
Nock
The Big A: "Maybe I'm misinterpretting, but I don't think this thread is about audiences, or what audiences are interested in. It's about receiving attention."
Actually, I thought this thread was about WSM. Why don't y'all move the political/journalism/etc. discussion to another thread?
Actually, I thought this thread was about WSM. Why don't y'all move the political/journalism/etc. discussion to another thread?
BigA, as always, you're a day late and a dollar short. I have already made THE SAME argument. I said I was surprised Hannity (or O'Reilly) did not show up, here. We, uh, actually agree NOW.
Of course, you said it did not matter because this story should not have been covered because it was a local story, and people 60 miles down the road would not care, and a bunch of other bs. I think you're wrong.
So, now, you are saying that YOU and Sean Hannity have the same MO for how to handle the situation. And yet, he is a villian in your eyes - for not doing what you said was "right." What a biassed joke. You and Hannity are BOTH WRONG.
Left or Right or nowhere...Fox and Hannity BLEW IT, we've been saying it...you agreed. Lot's of national news stations also blew it, including, gasp, MSNBC. WE AGREE.
Lord knows, what you say is gospel. The world is agasp and waiting for your opinion on everything. And you have again trapped yourself into finally admitting what all of us were so wrong about...the national media overlooked the story. Why did it only take you a week and a half to finally admit it? I'm just askin?
Kyle, hell. Just when it was gettin' fun, even YOU send me to my room! And, I never get into anything on this board.
Of course, you said it did not matter because this story should not have been covered because it was a local story, and people 60 miles down the road would not care, and a bunch of other bs. I think you're wrong.
So, now, you are saying that YOU and Sean Hannity have the same MO for how to handle the situation. And yet, he is a villian in your eyes - for not doing what you said was "right." What a biassed joke. You and Hannity are BOTH WRONG.
Left or Right or nowhere...Fox and Hannity BLEW IT, we've been saying it...you agreed. Lot's of national news stations also blew it, including, gasp, MSNBC. WE AGREE.
Lord knows, what you say is gospel. The world is agasp and waiting for your opinion on everything. And you have again trapped yourself into finally admitting what all of us were so wrong about...the national media overlooked the story. Why did it only take you a week and a half to finally admit it? I'm just askin?
Kyle, hell. Just when it was gettin' fun, even YOU send me to my room! And, I never get into anything on this board.
olebud said:
I know, olebud, we've always been such polar opposites!
Kyle ... Bud... You want us all to leave so you two can have some alone time?
Journeyman said:
now that's a mental image I could have done without...
- Status