• 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

Chemical plant fire in Ft.Worth coverage.

E

edwardrmurrow

Guest
Surprise.CH.8 had the best coverage.They stayed with the story until it was under control and had an expert from the Dallas FD giving valuable info.KXAS was doing their usual fumbling tabloid coverage.Ch.11 was decent.Ch.4 was presenting more of a drama than reporting news.They love to go overboard by making it larger than life.I am surprised they didn't mention possible Al-queda involvement.
 
> Surprise.CH.8 had the best coverage.They stayed with the
> story until it was under control and had an expeert from the
> Dallas FD giving valuable info.KXAS was doing their usual
> fumbling tabloid coverage.Ch.11 was decent.Ch.4 was
> presenting more of a drama than reporting news.They love to
> go overboard by making it larger than life.I am surprised
> they didn't mention possible Al-queda involvement.


Give them time. As soon as Fox News picks up the cadence "It's due to the Iraq War," Channel 4 will join in.

Then, back to national, Greta will start in with her interminable questions, such as "A big fire in Texas today. Could it be linked to Iraq? Does anyone know? Our panel of experts will tell us in a moment." This, of course, if she can get her nose out of Aruba and the nightly national missing persons report for ten minutes.
>
 
> > Surprise.CH.8 had the best coverage.They stayed with the
> > story until it was under control and had an expeert from
> the
> > Dallas FD giving valuable info.KXAS was doing their usual
> > fumbling tabloid coverage.Ch.11 was decent.Ch.4 was
> > presenting more of a drama than reporting news.They love
> to
> > go overboard by making it larger than life.I am surprised
> > they didn't mention possible Al-queda involvement.
>
>
> Give them time. As soon as Fox News picks up the cadence
> "It's due to the Iraq War," Channel 4 will join in.
>
> Then, back to national, Greta will start in with her
> interminable questions, such as "A big fire in Texas today.
> Could it be linked to Iraq? Does anyone know? Our panel of
> experts will tell us in a moment." This, of course, if she
> can get her nose out of Aruba and the nightly national
> missing persons report for ten minutes.
> >
> Fox 4 in its Viewers' Choice segment last night at nine ran comments on the station cutting into programming to cover the explosion and fire. Most were negative and said the fire could have waited until a regular newscast. The Fox 4 response basically said, "If you don't like it, stuff it."

A no-win situation. Cutting away from regular programs irks those who want their TV at any price, at all times." Had the fire coverage been put on hold, other viewers would have complained the station was ignoring important local news.
 
> > > Surprise.CH.8 had the best coverage.They stayed with
> the
> > > story until it was under control and had an expeert from
>
> > the
> > > Dallas FD giving valuable info.KXAS was doing their
> usual
> > > fumbling tabloid coverage.Ch.11 was decent.Ch.4 was
> > > presenting more of a drama than reporting news.They love
>
> > to
> > > go overboard by making it larger than life.I am
> surprised
> > > they didn't mention possible Al-queda involvement.
> >
> >
> > Give them time. As soon as Fox News picks up the cadence
> > "It's due to the Iraq War," Channel 4 will join in.
> >
> > Then, back to national, Greta will start in with her
> > interminable questions, such as "A big fire in Texas
> today.
> > Could it be linked to Iraq? Does anyone know? Our panel
> of
> > experts will tell us in a moment." This, of course, if
> she
> > can get her nose out of Aruba and the nightly national
> > missing persons report for ten minutes.
> > >
> > Fox 4 in its Viewers' Choice segment last night at nine
> ran comments on the station cutting into programming to
> cover the explosion and fire. Most were negative and said
> the fire could have waited until a regular newscast. The
> Fox 4 response basically said, "If you don't like it, stuff
> it."
>
> A no-win situation. Cutting away from regular programs irks
> those who want their TV at any price, at all times." Had
> the fire coverage been put on hold, other viewers would have
> complained the station was ignoring important local news.
>
It seems noone at Fox (be it network or local) has any real "Journalistic Integrity". Nothing wrong with covering a major story,esp one of this nature. But, have some couth when it comes to how you angle the story. One of the reasons I quit watching local news is because most of these stations are more concerned about "shocking" the viewer than helping inform.
 
> > A no-win situation. Cutting away from regular programs
> irks
> > those who want their TV at any price, at all times." Had
> > the fire coverage been put on hold, other viewers would
> have
> > complained the station was ignoring important local news.
> >
> It seems noone at Fox (be it network or local) has any real
> "Journalistic Integrity". Nothing wrong with covering a
> major story,esp one of this nature. But, have some couth
> when it comes to how you angle the story. One of the reasons
> I quit watching local news is because most of these stations
> are more concerned about "shocking" the viewer than helping
> inform.
>

I don't know what you were watching, but NBC 5 was the only station to go totally out of control on this story. Fox 4 and the rest played it pretty straight. They showed what was going on, explained the possible concerns, and got back to programming when it seemed prudent. NBC 5 stayed on the air for more than 3 hours straight with breathless coverage that said next to nothing.

This was a case when it seems to me that cutting in to regular programming was a good idea. It didn't turn out to be a toxic situation, but there was no way to know that at the start. Once they knew it wasn't toxic, it was still good to let people know that the huge plume of smoke wafting over their city wasn't going to kill them.
 
> Fox 4 in its Viewers' Choice segment last night at nine
> ran comments on the station cutting into programming to
> cover the explosion and fire. Most were negative and said
> the fire could have waited until a regular newscast. The
> Fox 4 response basically said, "If you don't like it, stuff
> it."
>
> A no-win situation. Cutting away from regular programs irks
> those who want their TV at any price, at all times." Had
> the fire coverage been put on hold, other viewers would have
> complained the station was ignoring important local news.
>

When I worked in TV in the mid '80s and the shuttle Challenger blew up, we were doubly stunned...first, at the horrific event itself, and second, at the hundreds (yes, hundreds) of little old ladies who called to complain - many using language that would make a sailor blush - about our station interrupting their soap operas.

Just goes to show, you can't please everyone.<P ID="signature">______________
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." - Robert Heinlein

dan</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom