"John D. Giorgis" wrote:
>
> At 11:34 AM 9/12/01 +0200 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
> >All other programs were cancelled (with one exception: the broadcasting of a
> >soccer match...) so news programs could be on the air continuously.
> >
> >The BBC's approach was a pleasant change. Begin a news program, report what
> >happened, add a few analyses, end news program, continue with the regular,
> >scheduled programming. Apparently the BBC reasons that there is no need to
> >just keep repeating themselves -- if there would be any new developments,
> >they could always interrupt the scheduled programs.
>
> In defence to the American networks that have been broadcasting news
> non-stop, and without commercials, since this began - I am very
> appreciative of this.
>
> After all, not everyone can be at the TV at any given time. Thus, the
> repeating of information is an indespensible service in the case of an
> event like this that affects all of us.
I agree, but it doesn't make sense to have 20* non-news cable channels
providing coverage duplicated by news channels and main network
broadcast channels. I could get something like 5 channels carrying the
Fox News coverage on Tuesday, but very little decent programming for
when I just needed a break from it. Then again, I may still have
residual backlash against constant coverage having been raised in a
family where I was the only person who didn't act like a news junkie.
* Yes, I counted. We've got lots of channels, and all the ones that I
would usually have on as some pleasant mindless background stuff for
when I'm feeding Sammy and can't necessarily hold a book, with the
exception of SciFi, A&E and History Channel, were showing coverage of
the unfolding events. (And I apologize for the construction of that
sentence, but I'm too tired to edit it.)
Julia
