Bad Journalism, Incompetence, or Filler? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

BigBen · 08-03-2005, 07:23 AM

I was watching the coverage on the plane that crashed at Pearson Airport yesterday, and was listening to the "Press Conference" that the head of the airport gave the media a few hours after the accident.

Yes, I have a weird sense of humour, and I ended up laughing at the questions coming from the press gallery:

"Did the plane intentionally run off the runway?"
"Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?"
"Could you tell us more about this 'Ravine' the plane came to rest in?"
"Could vehicle traffic on the 401 contributed to the cause?"

At every answer, the head of the airport stated over and over:
"I can't speculate on that, all I can tell you is what has already been stated."

The journalists simply peppered this guy with stupid questions. They sat in the conference room and brainstormed conspiracy theories, while attempting to find an "Angle" to make the story better (Or dare I say, sexier)

Is this bad journalism? The news stations that run 24 hours a day are now faced with the problem of filling that time. Are these questions simply filler to ensure that there is no 'Dead Air'? Are the reporters simply morons, who when faced with asking questions on their own come up with real stupid ones?

Think about a news event, say in the past 12 months, where it was a breaking story and the news conference was awash with bad questions. Can anyone contribute to the list above of really bad questions reporters ask?

I should post the questions in 'Tilted Humour'.

Charlatan · 08-03-2005, 07:38 AM

I think the only thing that makes these press conferences different from press conferences, say, 10 to 20 years ago is that they are televised in their entirety.

In the past, you would have either not seen the press conference or just seen a clip of the most relevant answer.

The problem with 24 hour live blanket coverage is that, unlike a newspaper there is less opportunity to edit. I reminds me of the time I was watching CNN in a hotel room and they cut to footage of a dog stuck on an ice flow in the middle of some river. All I could think at the time was, "This is newsworthy? This is important enough to put on a national news channel?"

Those reporters *may*have asked some lame questions but (in my opinion) they are only lame in the context in which you saw them.

ngdawg · 08-03-2005, 07:45 AM

What the hell kind of question is 'did the pilot intentionally run of the runway? '?????
Too bad the one answering the questions can't be a smartass: 'Yes, but unfortunately, he didn't go far enough, everyone survived and now he won't be in the Guiness book as 'worst mass-murderer through a transporation device'-next question!'

maleficent · 08-03-2005, 07:49 AM

Sometimes I think the questions are asked in hopes of tripping up the person who's b eing interviewed and hopes for a great conspiracy.

Hey. Charlatan, that dog was in Chicago, and it was while not newsworthy, it was a slow news day, and some feel good news is nice to see once in a while - -kinda like seeing who wins the spelling bee and other stuff- we get inundated with bad news every day, it's nice to see something that can either make you chuckle or just make you feel good thatpeople went out of their way to rescue a dog. (and human lives were not put at risk) Now of course the natural conclusion to that story wsa the dog was rescued, however being a dog he didnt realize that the rescuers were trying to help him and he bit the hand of the rescuer and had to be put down and tested for rabies (the dog, not the rescuer) I actuallythink the dog was sent to the animal shelter and adopted.

Charlatan · 08-03-2005, 08:00 AM

Mal... I don't have an issue with the dog story per se. By all means, cute doggy stories have there place.

My issue was that I was watching *live* footage of a dog on an ice floe and the rescue attempt being made by some guy in a row boat fighting a strong current.

This was being filmed from a helicopter, if I remember correctly and then broadcast across the US and Canada... as it unfolded. There was even nail bitting commentary by whichever talking head had the anchor desk... This live coverage went on for a long time.

Whenever I am in LA and watching their local news, I am amazed at the number of "breaking news" stories. It is usually some guy running from the cops or some house on fire all brought to you by a camera in a helicopter.

This is not news. It's voyeurism.

BigBen · 08-03-2005, 08:35 AM

Ben, a news reporter for WKUL, is on his first assignment. There seems to be a Canine caught on an ice flow...

Ben: "How long has the dog been on the ice?"
Fire Chief, responsible for the rescue: "We were made aware of the situation at about 11 am this morning."
Ben: "And what time is it now?"
FC: "It is 1:26 pm."
Ben: "So how long has the dog been there?"
FC: "that would be an hour and a half since we were first called."
Ben: "Oh. How long do you think that would be in dog years, or should I say, 'Dog Hours'? That's almost all day, right?"
FC: "I can't comment on that."
Ben: "How do you think the dog got there?"
FC: "Well, it must have wandered onto the river, and then the ice seperated, stranding the dog."
Ben: "Are you saying the dog can walk on water?! Is this some kind of messiah breed?"
FC: "Uh, no, the dog was walking on the ice."
Ben: "Thanks for clearing that up. Is it true that some breeds like to swim in water, Chief?"
FC: "Yes, several breeds like retrievers are natural swimmers."
Ben: "So this is a retirever that is stranded?"
FC: "No, this appears to be a Sheppard cross."
Ben: "Could you somehow change the breed so that it will be easier for the dog to swim to shore?"
FC: "No, I don't think that is possible."
Ben: "What rescue efforts have you attempted?"
FC: "We are currently sending our river rescue unit out in an inflatable boat to attempt to catch the dog."
Ben: "Will you attempt to communicate with the dog via a translator or a third party?"
FC: "No."
Ben: "What about waiting until the ice melts, and then swimming out to the dog?"

maleficent · 08-03-2005, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This is not news. It's voyeurism.

Sadly, news these days is entertainment, which is basically voyeurism... (she says tongue in cheek) Why it's important that we know that Brad and Jennifer are divorcing over that skank Angelina... and that Paris Hilton had to get a smaller ring becuase 24 carats was just too heavy for her poor little pampered hand... or that Tom Cruise and Brook Shields were having a spat...Entertainment and news are interjoined...

ironman · 08-03-2005, 08:54 AM

if yellow journalism is still journalism, then no, it is not bad journalism, incompetence nor a filler.

Elphaba · 08-03-2005, 08:56 AM

Welcome back Ben, you've been missed. Too funny....

Charlatan · 08-03-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ironman

if yellow journalism is still journalism, then no, it is not bad journalism, incompetence nor a filler.

These questions *hardly* constitute yellow journalism.

Quote:

"Did the plane intentionally run off the runway?"
"Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?"
"Could you tell us more about this 'Ravine' the plane came to rest in?"
"Could vehicle traffic on the 401 contributed to the cause?"

Taken out of context, yes, but by and large they are reasonable questions that could serve to provide context to the story.

Again, having this broadcast live in TV takes the questions out of context. A good newspaper reporter would/should ask any number of questions to make sure they get the story right. Out of context, any one of the questions *could* seem moronic.

"Did the plane intentionally run off the runway?" This can be read as, "Did the pilot do this on purpose to blow up his plane" and it can also be read as, "Did the pilot do this on purpose to avoid and obstruction on the runway?" Context is everything.

"Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?" This can be read as, "Was the pilot incompetent?" And it could also be read as, "Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?"

The last two questions are prefectly legit and I don't see how they could be misconstrued as bad questions. Please describe the Ravine into which the plane crashed. Could the cars on the 401 have contributed (i.e. headlights in the pilot's eyes, etc.).

BigBen · 08-03-2005, 09:20 AM

I think that the funny part came when the guy at the microphone kept responding to EVERY QUESTION with "We don't have any more information, I cannot comment on that, I can't speculate on that" etc, etc so that he was trying to say "Fuck off, This news conference is over" in a very Canadian way...

I mean, I sat and watched this thing go on for about 15 minutes. That is a long time to say "I don't know, and even if I did, I can't tell you without getting my ass sued off."

The reporters were crying for this guy to speculate, and he would not fall for the bait.

I think that is bad journalism.

maleficent · 08-03-2005, 09:23 AM

While I agree, most news conferences are inane, and I've seen some reporters get downright beligerent, they are only doing their job... They aren't allowed to poke around in the wreckage, so they only have the source that is in front of them, poke at him enough and you might get him to say something out of total frustration.

Charlatan · 08-03-2005, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen931

I think that the funny part came when the guy at the microphone kept responding to EVERY QUESTION with "We don't have any more information, I cannot comment on that, I can't speculate on that" etc, etc so that he was trying to say "Fuck off, This news conference is over" in a very Canadian way...

I mean, I sat and watched this thing go on for about 15 minutes. That is a long time to say "I don't know, and even if I did, I can't tell you without getting my ass sued off."

The reporters were crying for this guy to speculate, and he would not fall for the bait.

I think that is bad journalism.

(shrug)... it's only bad journalism is they don't ask the questions. If they didn't ask the questions they wouldn't be doing their job, which is to ask questions and write up the story.

Clearly, the spokesperson was just that, a spokesperson. I watched him answer two questions and he clearly had a lot of media training under his belt.

HIS job was to go out and meet the press (have to look like they aren't hiding anything) and offer only as much information as is neccessary.

In the end, press conferences are just psuedo-events that end up offering very little beyond the initial statement to the press.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-03-2005, 09:57 AM

Ben, were you ever a reporter in Arkansas? I had a news conference about 20 years ago, announcing the charges filed against a man who had killed his wife and mother. I stated the charge was "capital murder," because he'd caused the death of two people in the same episode, and the possible penalty. I promise you, what follows is almost verbatim to what I was asked.

Reporter: You've charged him with capital murder?

Me: Yes.

Reporter: Would you say the death penalty was the most serious penalty the law provides?

Me: (after looking at him for a second, waiting for a smile) (getting none) (looking at other reporters who couldn't keep a straight face like I had to) "I would say so, yes."

I feared the newsbite in the paper the next week: "Dep. Pros. says death penalty is the most serious provided by law." Fortunately, someone (probably NOT the reporter) figured out how dumb that question was.

guthmund · 08-03-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Ben, were you ever a reporter in Arkansas? I had a news conference about 20 years ago, announcing the charges filed against a man who had killed his wife and mother.

If you don't mind me asking... what was the man's name?

I'm from Arkansas, so I'm sort of morbidly curious....

As to the topic, I think it's probably a little of both. 24 hours a day to fill with news means you have to write some pretty insipid stuff. Insipid stuff, which is ridiculously easy to write and requires little actual investigating.

Real investigative journalism requires hard work. The problem is most of these folks are going to make the same no matter what they write. So, it's no wonder that they choose to write the fluff stuff instead of working a story. There's no reward for going the extra mile and digging a bit deeper.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-03-2005, 12:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guthmund

If you don't mind me asking... what was the man's name?

I'm from Arkansas, so I'm sort of morbidly curious....

I don't remember many of the names from that long ago, but this one stuck in my mind, primarily because I went to the crime scene and will never forget it. Haskell Wayne Snelgrove was the defendant.

Sorry to the OP for the threadjack here.

stevie667 · 08-03-2005, 02:46 PM

Were those from the tabloids by any chance?

shakran · 08-03-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBen931

"Did the plane intentionally run off the runway?"

In other words, "did the pilot decide that if he did not run off the runway something worse would happen?"

Quote:

"Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?"

"Could you tell us more about this 'Ravine' the plane came to rest in?"
"Could vehicle traffic on the 401 contributed to the cause?"

At every answer, the head of the airport stated over and over:
"I can't speculate on that, all I can tell you is what has already been stated."

Sure, sounds stupid to you, but what they were really doing was trying to get info. I've lost count of how many times I've gotten the "i can't speculate" answer, but about 10 questions in the guy suddenly says something important.

Would you prefer that journalists say "well gee the nice man at the front of the room said he wasn't going to say anything else about it so I guess I'll take him at his word and hope he's not bullshitting me?"

Quote:

Are the reporters simply morons, who when faced with asking questions on their own come up with real stupid ones?

See it's questions like these that start to annoy journalists. We ask questions like that to try and get information. I'll even let you in on a little interview secret. We TRY to appear to be morons. We'll ask you really stupid questions. The other day I asked a cop why it's important for kids to avoid smoking crack. And I know what he was thinking. "What kind of fucking moron is this. Who doesn't know why kids shouldn't smoke crack?" But then he gave me a soundbyte that I ended up using in my story that night. We're not stupid. Most of the time we already know the answer to the question we're asking you. But our job is to show people what YOU know, not what we know. What's the point of driving all the way out to somewhere to talk to an expert if the expert doesn't say anything?

In this case, the journalists probably had a pretty good idea what happened. It's a huge storm. Plane goes off the runway. Probably something to do with the weather. But we don't KNOW that, and we can't run with what we THINK might have happened. And when you clam up, it's our job to pepper you with questions to see if you'll crack and give us some info.

The public wants the journalists to get information, but then they criticize the way in which we go about doing it. I would humbly suggest that the public learn a few interview techniques before they get angry at the techniques of the people who do this for a living

I'm not saying all reporters are fabulous, and there are some really bad questions out there. "Your mom was just shot by gangmembers. How do you feel?" being one of my pet peeves. But this was not such an example.

Charlatan · 08-04-2005, 08:33 AM

Exactly Shakran... again, the big problem in all of this is that it was broadcast live rather edited into finished piece.

An analogy: would you rather eat meat that is served to you on a plate cooked? Or would you rather sit and watch as the cow is slaughtered, butchered, prepared and cooked?

I know I prefer the end result rather than watching how it got to my plate.

frogza · 08-04-2005, 09:21 AM

I stopped watching the news due to the utter stupidity of the reporters many years ago. I find most of the so called news is nothing more than gossip anyway and therefore none of my business.

AVoiceOfReason · 08-11-2005, 04:58 PM

I saw a crawl on the bottom of Fox News (I think--may have been MSNBC, but I think it was Fox) that said something like "Tennessee lawmen want the death penalty for the duo that killed an officer during the breakout--the maximum penalty."

Sorry, but I just found that last phrase too funny--and too much like my experience as recounted in #14 above.

shakran · 08-11-2005, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogza

I stopped watching the news due to the utter stupidity of the reporters many years ago. I find most of the so called news is nothing more than gossip anyway and therefore none of my business.

And what do you do for a living? There are morons in every profession. Even yours. Making blanket statements about reporters and news in general is not only disingenuous, it's inviting people to make the same generalizations about your line of work.

analog · 08-11-2005, 07:26 PM

I think part of it is that EVERY reporter is looking for that ONE break, to be the ONE person to ask the million-dollar question. The one question that everyone else couldn't think of, but propelled the news story to a whole different level. And everyone thinks THEIR question will be it. It's not like it's the same person asking all the stupid questions, it's several people. They all want a turn, and a shot, at bat for that golden question that takes them out of the field and puts them behind a news desk.

08-03-2005, 07:23 AM	#1 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Bad Journalism, Incompetence, or Filler? I was watching the coverage on the plane that crashed at Pearson Airport yesterday, and was listening to the "Press Conference" that the head of the airport gave the media a few hours after the accident. Yes, I have a weird sense of humour, and I ended up laughing at the questions coming from the press gallery: "Did the plane intentionally run off the runway?" "Could the pilot have prevented this from happening?" "Could you tell us more about this 'Ravine' the plane came to rest in?" "Could vehicle traffic on the 401 contributed to the cause?" At every answer, the head of the airport stated over and over: "I can't speculate on that, all I can tell you is what has already been stated." The journalists simply peppered this guy with stupid questions. They sat in the conference room and brainstormed conspiracy theories, while attempting to find an "Angle" to make the story better (Or dare I say, sexier) Is this bad journalism? The news stations that run 24 hours a day are now faced with the problem of filling that time. Are these questions simply filler to ensure that there is no 'Dead Air'? Are the reporters simply morons, who when faced with asking questions on their own come up with real stupid ones? Think about a news event, say in the past 12 months, where it was a breaking story and the news conference was awash with bad questions. Can anyone contribute to the list above of really bad questions reporters ask? I should post the questions in 'Tilted Humour'. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

08-03-2005, 07:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I think the only thing that makes these press conferences different from press conferences, say, 10 to 20 years ago is that they are televised in their entirety. In the past, you would have either not seen the press conference or just seen a clip of the most relevant answer. The problem with 24 hour live blanket coverage is that, unlike a newspaper there is less opportunity to edit. I reminds me of the time I was watching CNN in a hotel room and they cut to footage of a dog stuck on an ice flow in the middle of some river. All I could think at the time was, "This is newsworthy? This is important enough to put on a national news channel?" Those reporters mayhave asked some lame questions but (in my opinion) they are only lame in the context in which you saw them. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-03-2005, 07:45 AM	#3 (permalink)
ngdawg peekaboo Location: on the back, bitch	What the hell kind of question is 'did the pilot intentionally run of the runway? '????? Too bad the one answering the questions can't be a smartass: 'Yes, but unfortunately, he didn't go far enough, everyone survived and now he won't be in the Guiness book as 'worst mass-murderer through a transporation device'-next question!' __________________ Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

08-03-2005, 07:49 AM	#4 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	Sometimes I think the questions are asked in hopes of tripping up the person who's b eing interviewed and hopes for a great conspiracy. Hey. Charlatan, that dog was in Chicago, and it was while not newsworthy, it was a slow news day, and some feel good news is nice to see once in a while - -kinda like seeing who wins the spelling bee and other stuff- we get inundated with bad news every day, it's nice to see something that can either make you chuckle or just make you feel good thatpeople went out of their way to rescue a dog. (and human lives were not put at risk) Now of course the natural conclusion to that story wsa the dog was rescued, however being a dog he didnt realize that the rescuers were trying to help him and he bit the hand of the rescuer and had to be put down and tested for rabies (the dog, not the rescuer) I actuallythink the dog was sent to the animal shelter and adopted. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-03-2005, 08:00 AM	#5 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Mal... I don't have an issue with the dog story per se. By all means, cute doggy stories have there place. My issue was that I was watching live footage of a dog on an ice floe and the rescue attempt being made by some guy in a row boat fighting a strong current. This was being filmed from a helicopter, if I remember correctly and then broadcast across the US and Canada... as it unfolded. There was even nail bitting commentary by whichever talking head had the anchor desk... This live coverage went on for a long time. Whenever I am in LA and watching their local news, I am amazed at the number of "breaking news" stories. It is usually some guy running from the cops or some house on fire all brought to you by a camera in a helicopter. This is not news. It's voyeurism. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-03-2005, 08:35 AM	#6 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Ben, a news reporter for WKUL, is on his first assignment. There seems to be a Canine caught on an ice flow... Ben: "How long has the dog been on the ice?" Fire Chief, responsible for the rescue: "We were made aware of the situation at about 11 am this morning." Ben: "And what time is it now?" FC: "It is 1:26 pm." Ben: "So how long has the dog been there?" FC: "that would be an hour and a half since we were first called." Ben: "Oh. How long do you think that would be in dog years, or should I say, 'Dog Hours'? That's almost all day, right?" FC: "I can't comment on that." Ben: "How do you think the dog got there?" FC: "Well, it must have wandered onto the river, and then the ice seperated, stranding the dog." Ben: "Are you saying the dog can walk on water?! Is this some kind of messiah breed?" FC: "Uh, no, the dog was walking on the ice." Ben: "Thanks for clearing that up. Is it true that some breeds like to swim in water, Chief?" FC: "Yes, several breeds like retrievers are natural swimmers." Ben: "So this is a retirever that is stranded?" FC: "No, this appears to be a Sheppard cross." Ben: "Could you somehow change the breed so that it will be easier for the dog to swim to shore?" FC: "No, I don't think that is possible." Ben: "What rescue efforts have you attempted?" FC: "We are currently sending our river rescue unit out in an inflatable boat to attempt to catch the dog." Ben: "Will you attempt to communicate with the dog via a translator or a third party?" FC: "No." Ben: "What about waiting until the ice melts, and then swimming out to the dog?" __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

08-03-2005, 08:54 AM	#8 (permalink)
ironman Smithers, release the hounds Location: Guatemala, Guatemala	if yellow journalism is still journalism, then no, it is not bad journalism, incompetence nor a filler. __________________ If I agreed with you we´d both be wrong

08-03-2005, 08:56 AM	#9 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Welcome back Ben, you've been missed. Too funny.... __________________ "You can't ignore politics, no matter how much you'd like to." Molly Ivins - 1944-2007

08-03-2005, 09:20 AM	#11 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	I think that the funny part came when the guy at the microphone kept responding to EVERY QUESTION with "We don't have any more information, I cannot comment on that, I can't speculate on that" etc, etc so that he was trying to say "Fuck off, This news conference is over" in a very Canadian way... I mean, I sat and watched this thing go on for about 15 minutes. That is a long time to say "I don't know, and even if I did, I can't tell you without getting my ass sued off." The reporters were crying for this guy to speculate, and he would not fall for the bait. I think that is bad journalism. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

08-03-2005, 09:23 AM	#12 (permalink)
maleficent Junkie Moderator Emeritus Location: Chicago	While I agree, most news conferences are inane, and I've seen some reporters get downright beligerent, they are only doing their job... They aren't allowed to poke around in the wreckage, so they only have the source that is in front of them, poke at him enough and you might get him to say something out of total frustration. __________________ Free your heart from hatred. Free your mind from worries. Live simply. Give more. Expect less.

08-03-2005, 09:57 AM	#14 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Ben, were you ever a reporter in Arkansas? I had a news conference about 20 years ago, announcing the charges filed against a man who had killed his wife and mother. I stated the charge was "capital murder," because he'd caused the death of two people in the same episode, and the possible penalty. I promise you, what follows is almost verbatim to what I was asked. Reporter: You've charged him with capital murder? Me: Yes. Reporter: Would you say the death penalty was the most serious penalty the law provides? Me: (after looking at him for a second, waiting for a smile) (getting none) (looking at other reporters who couldn't keep a straight face like I had to) "I would say so, yes." I feared the newsbite in the paper the next week: "Dep. Pros. says death penalty is the most serious provided by law." Fortunately, someone (probably NOT the reporter) figured out how dumb that question was. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

08-03-2005, 02:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
stevie667 Too Awesome for Aardvarks Location: Angloland	Were those from the tabloids by any chance? __________________ Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

08-04-2005, 08:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Exactly Shakran... again, the big problem in all of this is that it was broadcast live rather edited into finished piece. An analogy: would you rather eat meat that is served to you on a plate cooked? Or would you rather sit and watch as the cow is slaughtered, butchered, prepared and cooked? I know I prefer the end result rather than watching how it got to my plate. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

08-04-2005, 09:21 AM	#20 (permalink)
frogza Registered User Location: Right Here	I stopped watching the news due to the utter stupidity of the reporters many years ago. I find most of the so called news is nothing more than gossip anyway and therefore none of my business.

08-11-2005, 04:58 PM	#21 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I saw a crawl on the bottom of Fox News (I think--may have been MSNBC, but I think it was Fox) that said something like "Tennessee lawmen want the death penalty for the duo that killed an officer during the breakout--the maximum penalty." Sorry, but I just found that last phrase too funny--and too much like my experience as recounted in #14 above. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

08-11-2005, 07:26 PM	#23 (permalink)
analog Banned	I think part of it is that EVERY reporter is looking for that ONE break, to be the ONE person to ask the million-dollar question. The one question that everyone else couldn't think of, but propelled the news story to a whole different level. And everyone thinks THEIR question will be it. It's not like it's the same person asking all the stupid questions, it's several people. They all want a turn, and a shot, at bat for that golden question that takes them out of the field and puts them behind a news desk.