Media screws up again...

I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.


It's what people pay for.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It's what people pay for.


Not me.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Teacherjh" wrote in message
...

It's what people pay for.


Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:h8hyc.9

It's what people pay for.

Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
newspapers. Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the news
on the internet more frequently now. http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:h8hyc.9

It's what people pay for.

Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
newspapers.

Yeah...during a MAJOR event.

Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

Ever see a cable company that doesn't provide CNN? How, with that built in,
why is their viewship down significantly EVEN DURING THIS WAR YOU TOUT?


There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the
news
on the internet more frequently now.

Geeez...you can't even follow the point for a few paragraphs. Here it is
again for your limited attention span (does that come with the job?) - their
viewship is down _dramatically_.

http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.

Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

CFOS!

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in message news:fjoyc.44

Geeez...you can't even follow the point for a few paragraphs. Here it is
again for your limited attention span (does that come with the job?) -
their
viewship is down _dramatically_.

Second ad hom attack. I have no interest in your uneducated opinion or
personal attacks and, given your penchant for talking about things for which
you have no education or professional background, I would not dare fly with
you either.

Your opinion means nothing to me.

*plonk*

-c

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"gatt" wrote in message

http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.


Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

Because Fox is better at whoring?

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...
Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"gatt" wrote in message

http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot
of
money from advertising revenue.


Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

Because Fox is better at whoring?

Like your Mom?

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message news:40ce6ae0$0$32614

Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

Because Fox is better at whoring?

I particularly appreciated the sentimental soundtrack and loop slow-motion
video clips of the 9/11 crashes they played ad nauseum. As a rule, if they
have to use a soundtrack to emotionalize a straight news story, it's both
poor journalism AND biased.

-c

It's what people pay for.

Not me.


Like I said, it's what people pay for.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)