[TV orNotTV] Bayless Sends FS1's Viewership Skyrocketing (Surprisingly)

[Mark Jeffries]

Former ESPN exec (and NBC News for a brief moment) Jamie Horowitz's attempt 
to raise the visibility of Fox's struggling sports channel seems to be 
working--since "Skip and Shannon Undisputed," his carbon of the Worldwide 
Leader's "First Take" with Skip Bayless moving over as the Idiot White Guy 
and Shannon Sharpe replacing Stephen A. Smith as the Pissed Off Black Guy 
(and Joy Taylor as the Hot Babe Moderator) started a month ago, FS1's 
ratings for the morning show are up in its time slot 358 percent (733 
percent in the demo), and giving a rainbow effect to its lead-out, a talk 
show fronted by Colin Cowherd, another ex-ESPNer:

http://www.thewrap.com/skip-bayless-undisputed-fox-sports-1-herd-shannon-sharpe-tv-ratings/

I guess it means that as loathsome as these sports debate shows are, they 
do have an audience and that there are young males home in the mornings who 
would rather watch Bayless and Sharpe yelling at each other instead of 
Kelly Ripa or Kathie Lee and Hoda (or even Drew Carey and Wayne 
Brady)--until Springer comes on.


-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: I noticed something about the LDS...

[stannc]

TBS/TNT did the same thing last year for Mets/Dodgers in the NLDS. 

-Stan

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Will Billy Bush be hurt by Trump's vulgar comments about women?

[Bob Jersey]

PGage, to Tom Wolper and Adam Bowie:
>
> This is a bit of a non-denial denial. Burnett appears to be saying that he 
> is governed by the same non-disclosure agreement as everyone else. I don't 
> think the issue is that Burnett will sue people who disclose, but that 
> anyone who discloses will be held in violation, and owe millions of 
> dollars. Should such a person refuse to pay, then presumably the rights 
> holder would sue to force them to pay.
>
>
> Deadline (link): Gloria Allred, in behalf of people offended by Don, tried 
to request a meeting 

 
with Burnett to get the tapes released... to do it legally would likely 
have to wait till a first Trump term ends...

B

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: I noticed something about the LDS...

[Bob Jersey]

daniel anderson wrote:
>
> FOX has been using MLB Network when the first game runs late to cover the 
> second game(FOX announcers and graphics) once the frist game is over, they 
> move the second game to FS1 
>

Better than nothing, right?   B
 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Will Billy Bush be hurt by Trump's vulgar comments about women?

[Mark Jeffries]

It should be pointed out that Trump co-owns all of the versions of "The
Apprentice" he appeared on, which pretty much puts a stop to any attempt to
mine outtakes for things he might've said.

Also, it should be pointed out that Mark Cuban works for Burnett on "Shark
Tank" (which, Adam, is our version of "Dragon's Den").

And two other things of note:  The version of the tape that "Access" aired
on Friday night had edited out Billy Bush's incriminating statements, to no
avail.  And Al Roker, who was going to take a week off for medical reasons,
was called back in to "Today" to sub for Bush and was remarkably neutral in
his on-air reaction to Bush's suspension, which would indicate that Roker
(and by extension, some "Today" veterans) were not mourning Bush's absence.

Mark Jeffries
Saints Spotlight Editor
spotligh...@gmail.com

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 3:11 PM, PGage  wrote:

> This is a bit of a non-denial denial. Burnett appears to be saying that he
> is governed by the same non-disclosure agreement as everyone else. I don't
> think the issue is that Burnett will sue people who disclose, but that
> anyone who discloses will be held in violation, and owe millions of
> dollars. Should such a person refuse to pay, then presumably the rights
> holder would sue to force them to pay.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, Tom Wolper  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Adam Bowie  wrote:
>>
>>> I suspect that it's less whether someone will risk a Mark Burnett
>>> lawsuit (I'm sure there'd be no shortage of people happy to pay the fine),
>>> as whether someone actually has access to the rushes.
>>>
>>> I suspect that NBC only ever took delivery of a finished "tape" of the
>>> show, and that after editing was completed, footage was stored away in some
>>> vault somewhere. It would have been sensitive at the time not least because
>>> of the gameshow element - nobody wanting leaks until the episodes had aired
>>> - but also because if Trump truly did say shocking things that were cut,
>>> Burnett's team would have been aware of the potential damage even without
>>> him embarking on a political campaign. It would have damaged the show for
>>> one thing, potentially affecting employment prospects of those who worked
>>> on the show.
>>>
>>> Indeed I wonder if the footage even *exists* any longer. It's not hard
>>> to imagine that hard drives or tapes have been wiped. As soon as Trump
>>> stood, I'd imagine that Burnett would either have doubled down on security
>>> of the footage, or expunged it altogether if he is, as reported, a Trump
>>> supporter.
>>>
>>> It will probably all come down to whether an employee somewhere along
>>> the line, took a copy or something incendiary and squirreled it away
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>
>> Just to keep this updated, Mark Burnett said that he sold his production
>> company to MGM a couple of years ago and they own all the rights now.
>> Although I did see it pointed out that Burnett is the head of MGM TV. In
>> any case the $5 million threat was never made.
>>
>> I would not have bothered with this but I got an email from MoveOn this
>> morning with a petition to NBC and MGM calling on them to release the
>> footage.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Re: [TV orNotTV] Tonight's new Full Frontal pushed to October 24

[Jon Delfin]

I thought it was weird that my program guide showed a new episode for
tonight, but an ad that ran during last night's promised the next new show
on October 24.

On Oct 11, 2016 10:52 PM, "'David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV" <
tvornottv@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> For some reason there was supposed to be another new Full Frontal episode
> tonight (in addition to last night's show).  The show's Twitter feed noted
> earlier today that the new episode (or at least the segment(s) featuring
> female world leaders) will run on October 24.
>
> https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/785909769483669504
>
> So you can watch last night's episode tonight (though it's half over on
> the East as I type).
>
> David
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Tonight's new Full Frontal pushed to October 24

['David Bruggeman' via TVorNotTV]

For some reason there was supposed to be another new Full Frontal episode 
tonight (in addition to last night's show).  The show's Twitter feed noted 
earlier today that the new episode (or at least the segment(s) featuring female 
world leaders) will run on October 24.
https://twitter.com/FullFrontalSamB/status/785909769483669504

So you can watch last night's episode tonight (though it's half over on the 
East as I type).
David

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: I noticed something about the LDS...

[daniel anderson]

TBS has been using TNT for ALDS-they've had a few runovers too.

On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 9:43:46 PM UTC-4, daniel anderson wrote:
>
> FOX has been using MLB Network when the first game runs late to cover the 
> second game(FOX announcers and graphics) once the frist game is over, they 
> move the second game to FS1 
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Falloff in TV watching by age group

[Bob Jersey]

Tom Wolper:
>
> I wish I had the source to confirm. What I have is the graph in this tweet.
>
> https://twitter.com/jasonwstein/status/785925697458012160/photo/1
>

Here's a larger version: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CuhRSdQWgAAcNBW.jpg

The source appears to be Matthew Ball at REDEF.com, tho I've yet to locate 
it (or a support article) there.

B
 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[BillPartsch]

I’ve been out of the game for a few years, so I suppose it’s possible some 
publications’ style guides have been adapted to permit correcting grammatical 
errors in social media posts without brackets. I recognize editors do 
themselves no favors when they are perceived to be grossly insensitive or 
elitist. 

If I were editing a piece such as has been discussed here, I’d either put the 
correct language in brackets or paraphrase around the error. “A relative of one 
of the victims tweeted that the death would affect the family ‘for a long 
time.’”

In the Zucker case, I’d come up with something like, “The actor tweeted, ‘I am 
a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to a 
great man,’ adding that she has learned not to let the words of others affect 
her self-worth. She also urged readers to treat one another ‘with kindness, 
dignity and respect,’ in all settings, including locker rooms.”

In fact, the bigger problem with quoting social media is over-reliance on 
robotic re-transmission of entire tweets or big chunks of Facebook posts. A lot 
of (especially online) media outlets would do well to take a page from 
“Glengarry Glen Ross” and ABE: Always Be Editing.

—Bill

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 11:58 AM, PGage  wrote:
> 
> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use when 
> A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional sources 
> on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal distress 
> or crisis.
> 
> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes 
> in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does 
> the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read 
> Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
> 
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch  > wrote:
> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually 
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to 
> put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the 
> value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. 
> Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites 
> second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general professional 
> competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential 
> perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.
> 
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway 
> if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The 
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors 
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I 
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to 
> “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker 
> momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such 
> practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied 
> by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. 
> 
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick > > wrote:
>> 
>> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that 
>> the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>> 
>> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? 
>> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam > > wrote:
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
>> [sic]’d.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: adam.bo...@gmail.com 
>>  
>> [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com 
>> ] On Behalf Of Adam 
>> Bowie
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> To: tvornottv
>> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in 
>> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're 
>> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic 
>> into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their 
>> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that 
>> quote Zucker.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> The same piece 
>> (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/
>>  
>> )
>>  also talks 

[TV orNotTV] I noticed something about the LDS...

[daniel anderson]

FOX has been using MLB Network when the first game runs late to cover the 
second game(FOX announcers and graphics) once the frist game is over, they 
move the second game to FS1 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Kim's Convenience

[Doug Eastick]

I have set my PVR.


http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/toronto/programs/metromorning/kims-convenience-tv-show-asian-cast-1.3800295

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Chachi loves the locker room banter

[Doug Eastick]

I only post this here because of the TV association.   Watch the video if
you were offended by trumps [sic, rather than adding apostrophe]  remarks
on the 2005 tape -- you will not like the commentary.


http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-crass-comments-scott-baio-billy-bush/

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Falloff in TV watching by age group

[Tom Wolper]

I wish I had the source to confirm. What I have is the graph in this tweet.

https://twitter.com/jasonwstein/status/785925697458012160/photo/1

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[Brad Beam]

From: tvornottv@googlegroups.com [mailto:tvornottv@googlegroups.com] On Behalf 
Of d...@flids.net


>>"For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes 
>>in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does 
>>the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read 
>>Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?"
> 
>..."point out that [its] editors read"...
> 
>*mischievous grin*
 
Today’s win of the internets goes to….
 
_  _
|_>|_>  Brad Beam- Belle WV
|_>|_>  http://www.facebook.com/74bmw

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Bristology gets a taste of "Burgundy"

[Bob Jersey]

Moi, Sept 27th (edited):
>
>
> As midday gabber "His & Hers" spoofs the fight scene in "Anchorman", with 
> Michael Smith as Ferrell, Jemele Hill as Carell, and morning radio/ESPN2 
> stars Greenberg and Golic as Rudd and Koechner, with a slew of other 
> Woildwide Leadah faces as the other stations' staffs.
>
> EMZ 
> 
>  
> (link)
>
>
> The company loved it so much, they're promoting Smith and Hill to 6pm-east 
*SportsCenter* anchors, debuting the night of the coming Super Bowl... 
they'll be able to port plenty of their H flavour to the new slot... 
Variety 

 
(link)

B
 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Will Billy Bush be hurt by Trump's vulgar comments about women?

[PGage]

This is a bit of a non-denial denial. Burnett appears to be saying that he
is governed by the same non-disclosure agreement as everyone else. I don't
think the issue is that Burnett will sue people who disclose, but that
anyone who discloses will be held in violation, and owe millions of
dollars. Should such a person refuse to pay, then presumably the rights
holder would sue to force them to pay.

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, Tom Wolper  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Adam Bowie  > wrote:
>
>> I suspect that it's less whether someone will risk a Mark Burnett lawsuit
>> (I'm sure there'd be no shortage of people happy to pay the fine), as
>> whether someone actually has access to the rushes.
>>
>> I suspect that NBC only ever took delivery of a finished "tape" of the
>> show, and that after editing was completed, footage was stored away in some
>> vault somewhere. It would have been sensitive at the time not least because
>> of the gameshow element - nobody wanting leaks until the episodes had aired
>> - but also because if Trump truly did say shocking things that were cut,
>> Burnett's team would have been aware of the potential damage even without
>> him embarking on a political campaign. It would have damaged the show for
>> one thing, potentially affecting employment prospects of those who worked
>> on the show.
>>
>> Indeed I wonder if the footage even *exists* any longer. It's not hard to
>> imagine that hard drives or tapes have been wiped. As soon as Trump stood,
>> I'd imagine that Burnett would either have doubled down on security of the
>> footage, or expunged it altogether if he is, as reported, a Trump supporter.
>>
>> It will probably all come down to whether an employee somewhere along the
>> line, took a copy or something incendiary and squirreled it away somewhere.
>>
>
> Just to keep this updated, Mark Burnett said that he sold his production
> company to MGM a couple of years ago and they own all the rights now.
> Although I did see it pointed out that Burnett is the head of MGM TV. In
> any case the $5 million threat was never made.
>
> I would not have bothered with this but I got an email from MoveOn this
> morning with a petition to NBC and MGM calling on them to release the
> footage.
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> 
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Will Billy Bush be hurt by Trump's vulgar comments about women?

[Steve Timko]

Gerard Mulligan has a nice quip about Billy Bush and NBC.

Check out @GerardMulligan1's Tweet: 
https://twitter.com/GerardMulligan1/status/785915305549766657?s=09


⁣Not sent from an iPhone.​

On Oct 9, 2016, 6:21 PM, at 6:21 PM, Bob Jersey  wrote:
>
>Adam Bowie, to Kevin M and Tom Wolper, in part:
>>
>> The Apprentice footage belongs to Mark Burnett right? Shouldn't he
>right 
>> now be shopping NBC an Apprentice Outtakes special? And yes, I
>realise that 
>> must mean some acknowledgement of how Trump behaved at the time.
>>
>>
>> Burnett has been fighting efforts 
>
>
>to release any Trump outtakes (CBS News link, but largely from Aypee).
>
>B
>
>-- 
>-- 
>TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
>To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
>To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>For more options, visit this group at
>http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
>--- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>Groups "TVorNotTV" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[doug]

"For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?"..."point out that [its] editors read"...*mischievous grin*Doug FieldsTampa, FL


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
From: PGage 
Date: Tue, October 11, 2016 11:58 am
To: "tvornottv@googlegroups.com" 

I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal distress or crisis.For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch  wrote:When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick  wrote:personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  wrote:CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was [sic]’d. From: adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam BowieSent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10To: tvornottvSubject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick? A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.  From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote Zucker. The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted. Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's factually incorrect.  On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  wrote:I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):  “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.” I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: 9/11/01 what did you watch?

[Bob Jersey]

Jon Delfin, to daniel anderson:
>
> Makes sense. Bravo has no news division, and 2001 predates when 
> NBC/ABC/CBS would simulcast over other channels (was Bravo part of NBCU 
> then? was there even an NBCU then?).
>
> They would launch it the following year. Rainbow/Cablevision was still its 
parent then.  B
 
 

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Will Billy Bush be hurt by Trump's vulgar comments about women?

[Tom Wolper]

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Adam Bowie  wrote:

> I suspect that it's less whether someone will risk a Mark Burnett lawsuit
> (I'm sure there'd be no shortage of people happy to pay the fine), as
> whether someone actually has access to the rushes.
>
> I suspect that NBC only ever took delivery of a finished "tape" of the
> show, and that after editing was completed, footage was stored away in some
> vault somewhere. It would have been sensitive at the time not least because
> of the gameshow element - nobody wanting leaks until the episodes had aired
> - but also because if Trump truly did say shocking things that were cut,
> Burnett's team would have been aware of the potential damage even without
> him embarking on a political campaign. It would have damaged the show for
> one thing, potentially affecting employment prospects of those who worked
> on the show.
>
> Indeed I wonder if the footage even *exists* any longer. It's not hard to
> imagine that hard drives or tapes have been wiped. As soon as Trump stood,
> I'd imagine that Burnett would either have doubled down on security of the
> footage, or expunged it altogether if he is, as reported, a Trump supporter.
>
> It will probably all come down to whether an employee somewhere along the
> line, took a copy or something incendiary and squirreled it away somewhere.
>

Just to keep this updated, Mark Burnett said that he sold his production
company to MGM a couple of years ago and they own all the rights now.
Although I did see it pointed out that Burnett is the head of MGM TV. In
any case the $5 million threat was never made.

I would not have bothered with this but I got an email from MoveOn this
morning with a petition to NBC and MGM calling on them to release the
footage.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[PGage]

Joe, both of these points are satisfying to me, thank-you. I think there
may be some question as to whether Zucker's post meets your extemporaneous
criteria, and I might want to give her the benefit of the doubt since  she
was so obviously dragged into this thing against her will; but then she is
a public person and can be assumed to have some kind of publicity
professionals working for her.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Joe Hass  wrote:

> I would make this argument for the use of "sic":
>
> This was not a extemporaneous tweet in which the author was typing this
> out bit after bit. This was intended as a released statement, which means
> someone else should've likely taken a look at this and gone "You meant
> 'affect' instead of 'effect' here." to release it. Because of that, I think
> the use of "sic" is worth using, identifying that the error was made in the
> original statement.
>
> With that said: I would reserve "sic" for situations where *any* reader
> would go "That is obviously wrong". A sic is designed to be used when the
> reader would've already stopped and the editor needs to identify that,
> basically, it's not us. Putting it in is the equivalent of a speed bump: it
> stops the reader's flow, which makes sense if the belief is the reader has
> already stopped. When the error isn't so obvious (which affect/effect
> definitely falls under), using "sic" forces the reader to try to figure out
> what the problem was. I'd go with the bracketed "[affect]" in this
> situation.
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM PGage  wrote:
>
>> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
>> when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
>> sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
>> distress or crisis.
>>
>> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting
>> writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long
>> time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that
>> it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch  wrote:
>>
>> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
>> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
>> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
>> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
>> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
>> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
>> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
>> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
>> reader/viewer trust.
>>
>> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
>> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
>> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
>> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
>> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
>> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
>> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
>> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
>> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
>> length and clarity.
>>
>> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick  wrote:
>>
>> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
>> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>>
>> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
>> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
>> it.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  wrote:
>>
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
>> was [sic]’d.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of
>> *Adam Bowie
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> *To:* tvornottv
>> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
>> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
>> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
>> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's
>> their report that has been used as the substance of many of the other
>> reports that quote Zucker.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-
>> censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about how sic can be used in
>> quite a 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[Joe Hass]

I would make this argument for the use of "sic":

This was not a extemporaneous tweet in which the author was typing this out
bit after bit. This was intended as a released statement, which means
someone else should've likely taken a look at this and gone "You meant
'affect' instead of 'effect' here." to release it. Because of that, I think
the use of "sic" is worth using, identifying that the error was made in the
original statement.

With that said: I would reserve "sic" for situations where *any* reader
would go "That is obviously wrong". A sic is designed to be used when the
reader would've already stopped and the editor needs to identify that,
basically, it's not us. Putting it in is the equivalent of a speed bump: it
stops the reader's flow, which makes sense if the belief is the reader has
already stopped. When the error isn't so obvious (which affect/effect
definitely falls under), using "sic" forces the reader to try to figure out
what the problem was. I'd go with the bracketed "[affect]" in this
situation.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:58 AM PGage  wrote:

> I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
> when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
> sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
> distress or crisis.
>
> For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting
> writes in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long
> time". Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that
> it's editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?
>
>
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch  wrote:
>
> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
> reader/viewer trust.
>
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
> length and clarity.
>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick  wrote:
>
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
> it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  wrote:
>
> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
> was [sic]’d.
>
>
>
> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Bowie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> *To:* tvornottv
> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>
>
>
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>
>
>
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports
> that quote Zucker.
>
>
>
> The same piece (
> https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
> also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially
> when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question
> probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
> it's factually incorrect.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  wrote:
>
> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our 

Re: [TV orNotTV] This week's J! test

[PGage]

Pidge was delightful - a great champion. I will think of her now whenever I
have to say "Lake Titicaca". It seemed like there were three strong players
in that game, so it was a satisfying win.

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, Diner  wrote:

> Spoiler alert to anyone who hasn't caught up, but...
>
> Congrats to Pidge on a wonderful job! Long may she reign.
>
> And I was quite impressed that she applauded when her opponents landed on
> the Daily Doubles. Not only did she earn the championship, she earned bonus
> points for sportsmanlike (sportswomanlike?) behavior.
>
> BTW, it drove me nuts that I couldn't remember the "Gulliver's Travels"
> answer either. But then again, I guessed FDR instead of Reagan for Final
> Jeopardy.
>
>
> On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 11:51:23 PM UTC-4, Jim Ellwanger wrote:
>
>>
>> > On Oct 10, 2016, at 8:31 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV <
>> tvor...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Just a reminder that my wife, Pidge Meade, will be on the Jeopardy
>> episode that airs tonight, October 10th.
>>
>> Sad to see she wasn’t the one who uncovered the Daily Double about the
>> name of the humans who were enslaved by the Houyhnhnms in “Gulliver’s
>> Travels.”
>>
>> Although maybe that was a more appropriate question for her husband.
>>
>> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> 
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>


-- 
Sent from Gmail Mobile

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[PGage]

I understand the traditional use of "sic", but I am questioning its use
when A) quoting easily available quotes from non-technical or professional
sources on social media and B) the person being quoted is in some personal
distress or crisis.

For example, imagine a relative of someone killed in a mass shooting writes
in a tweet: "This death is going to effect our family for a long time".
Does the AP really need to add a dickish [sic] to point out that it's
editors read Strunk and White and the ignorant regular person did not?

On Tuesday, 11 October 2016, BillPartsch  wrote:

> When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually
> “[sic]”—is required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be
> to put the correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect]
> the value….” It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s
> integrity. Letting it slide indicates loose technical standards, which
> invites second-guessing of reporting, fact-checking, and general
> professional competence. For any media outlet worth its salt, the trade-off
> of potential perceived dickishness is absolutely worth maintaining
> reader/viewer trust.
>
> A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some
> leeway if the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The
> reporter/writer can edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors
> when it is beyond question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I
> remember when Bobby Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed
> to “…June of ’68,” without brackets, if based on other statements, the
> speaker momentarily confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations.
> Such practice is routine for Q’s online or in print and is typically
> accompanied by a disclaimer that the content was “lightly edited" for
> length and clarity.
>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick  > wrote:
>
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
> that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
>
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
> it.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  > wrote:
>
>> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
>> was [sic]’d.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com
>>  [mailto:
>> adam.bo...@gmail.com
>> ] *On Behalf Of *Adam
>> Bowie
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
>> *To:* tvornottv
>> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>>
>>
>>
>> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
>> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
>> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>>
>>
>>
>> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
>> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's
>> their report that has been used as the substance of many of the other
>> reports that quote Zucker.
>>
>>
>>
>> The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.c
>> om/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about
>> how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when the mistake is
>> common and one that the publication in question probably makes quite a lot.
>> "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
>> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
>> it's factually incorrect.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage > > wrote:
>>
>> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
>> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
>> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
>> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
>> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>>
>>
>>
>> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
>> partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
>> of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
>> content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
>> doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
>> and respect.”
>>
>>
>>
>> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter,
>> who then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said
>> "effect" and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the
>> 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[BillPartsch]

When quoting something written, some manner of clarification—usually “[sic]”—is 
required, for the reasons Doug noted. The other option would be to put the 
correct word in brackets: “…the words of others cannot [affect] the value….” 
It’s not a judgment; it’s more about the re-publisher’s integrity. Letting it 
slide indicates loose technical standards, which invites second-guessing of 
reporting, fact-checking, and general professional competence. For any media 
outlet worth its salt, the trade-off of potential perceived dickishness is 
absolutely worth maintaining reader/viewer trust.

A reporter transcribing a recorded spoken statement actually has some leeway if 
the recording is not otherwise available to the public. The reporter/writer can 
edit obvious grammatical errors or even factual errors when it is beyond 
question that the source simply misspoke. For example, “I remember when Bobby 
Kennedy got shot back in June of ’63,” can be changed to “…June of ’68,” 
without brackets, if based on other statements, the speaker momentarily 
confused the years of the two Kennedy assassinations. Such practice is routine 
for Q’s online or in print and is typically accompanied by a disclaimer that 
the content was “lightly edited" for length and clarity. 

> On Oct 11, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Doug Eastick  wrote:
> 
> personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity that 
> the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.
> 
> I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect? 
> affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get it.
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  > wrote:
> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
> [sic]’d.
> 
>  
> 
> From: adam.bo...@gmail.com  
> [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com ] On Behalf Of Adam 
> Bowie
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> To: tvornottv
> Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
> 
>  
> 
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their 
> reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an 
> agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
> 
>  
> 
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic 
> into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their 
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that 
> quote Zucker.
> 
>  
> 
> The same piece 
> (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/
>  
> )
>  also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially 
> when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably 
> makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
> 
>  
> 
> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed 
> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's 
> factually incorrect. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  > wrote:
> 
> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism 
> or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a 
> tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was 
> one of the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy 
> Bush's pimping): 
> 
>  
> 
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner 
> to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others 
> cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my 
> character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker 
> rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.”
> 
>  
> 
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who 
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and 
> not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is from a 
> book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case like this, 
> when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's public and 
> easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning of the 
> passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that everything inside 
> is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who to blame, can't they 
> pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for themselves? It seems 
> like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and mostly serves to embarrass 
> the subject for making the kind of mistake that college freshmen (and many of 
> us who have moved beyond that) everywhere make all the time.
> 
>  

Re: [TV orNotTV] Re: 9/11/01 what did you watch?

[Jon Delfin]

Makes sense. Bravo has no news division, and 2001 predates when NBC/ABC/CBS
would simulcast over other channels (was Bravo part of NBCU then? was there
even an NBCU then?).

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 9:16 AM, daniel anderson <
danielanderson2...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't remember every channel suspending programming- i watched a rerun
> of *St. Elsewhere *at some point on Bravo during the evening. Starz had
> movies, although they removed the disaster movies and aired lighter ones
> instead. The ABC owned channels had ABC's coverage for sure.
>
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:11:03 PM UTC-4, daniel anderson wrote:
>>
>> I got tried of all the news coverage on 9/11/01 that i watched some other
>> shows. My mom actually tuned out the news coverage to watch Soapnet, which
>> had reruns of  "Sisters" and "Knots Landing"  instead. i did that too, but
>> watched the game shows on Game Show Network too. did anyone of you do that
>> on 9/11/01 find something else to watch?
>>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: 9/11/01 what did you watch?

[daniel anderson]

I don't remember every channel suspending programming- i watched a rerun of 
*St. 
Elsewhere *at some point on Bravo during the evening. Starz had movies, 
although they removed the disaster movies and aired lighter ones instead. 
The ABC owned channels had ABC's coverage for sure. 

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:11:03 PM UTC-4, daniel anderson wrote:
>
> I got tried of all the news coverage on 9/11/01 that i watched some other 
> shows. My mom actually tuned out the news coverage to watch Soapnet, which 
> had reruns of  "Sisters" and "Knots Landing"  instead. i did that too, but 
> watched the game shows on Game Show Network too. did anyone of you do that 
> on 9/11/01 find something else to watch?
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[Doug Eastick]

personally, I love it when media places use [sic].  It provides clarity
that the original author/speaker made and error and not the publisher.

I've bin always struggled with proper English grammar (who? whom? effect?
affect?  big? bigly?)  so I appreciate the edumacation wherever I can get
it.



On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:03 AM, Brad Beam  wrote:

> CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite)
> was [sic]’d.
>
>
>
> *From:* adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Adam
> Bowie
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
> *To:* tvornottv
> *Subject:* Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
>
>
>
> A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
> their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
> using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.
>
>
>
> From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced *sic
> *into their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their
> report that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports
> that quote Zucker.
>
>
>
> The same piece (https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-
> censorious-quality-of-sic/) also talks about how sic can be used in quite
> a superior way, especially when the mistake is common and one that the
> publication in question probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
> over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
> it's factually incorrect.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  wrote:
>
> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>
>
>
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
> partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
> of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
> content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
> doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
> and respect.”
>
>
>
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
> and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
> from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
> like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
> public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
> of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
> everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
> to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
> themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
> mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
> college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
> make all the time.
>
>
>
> This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
> particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
> trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
> is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
> gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
> overlooking something?
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and 

Re: [TV orNotTV] This week's J! test

[Diner]

Spoiler alert to anyone who hasn't caught up, but...

Congrats to Pidge on a wonderful job! Long may she reign.

And I was quite impressed that she applauded when her opponents landed on 
the Daily Doubles. Not only did she earn the championship, she earned bonus 
points for sportsmanlike (sportswomanlike?) behavior.

BTW, it drove me nuts that I couldn't remember the "Gulliver's Travels" 
answer either. But then again, I guessed FDR instead of Reagan for Final 
Jeopardy.


On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 11:51:23 PM UTC-4, Jim Ellwanger wrote:

>
> > On Oct 10, 2016, at 8:31 AM, 'Dave Sikula' via TVorNotTV <
> tvor...@googlegroups.com > wrote: 
> > 
> > Just a reminder that my wife, Pidge Meade, will be on the Jeopardy 
> episode that airs tonight, October 10th. 
>
> Sad to see she wasn’t the one who uncovered the Daily Double about the 
> name of the humans who were enslaved by the Houyhnhnms in “Gulliver’s 
> Travels.” 
>
> Although maybe that was a more appropriate question for her husband. 
>
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[Brad Beam]

CBS just showed a Donald Trump tweet where “Desite” (instead of despite) was 
[sic]’d.
 
From: adam.bo...@gmail.com [mailto:adam.bo...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Adam Bowie
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 4:10
To: tvornottv
Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?
 
A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used sic in their 
reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're using an 
agency report as the backbone of their stories. 
 
>From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced sic into 
>their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report 
>that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote 
>Zucker.
 
The same piece 
(https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
 also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially when 
the mistake is common and one that the publication in question probably makes 
quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.
 
Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed over, 
but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where it's 
factually incorrect. 
 
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  > wrote:
I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or journalism 
or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this presentation of a tweet 
by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the Trump Tape (she was one of 
the women who was the subject of his bragging, and the target of Billy Bush's 
pimping): 
 
“I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and partner to 
a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words of others cannot 
effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the content of my character. 
How we treat one another, whether behind closed doors, locker rooms or 
face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity and respect.”
 
I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who then 
transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect" and not 
"affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is from a book or 
hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case like this, when the 
quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's public and easily 
available writing, and does not really change the meaning of the passage, don't 
the quotation marks themselves indicate that everything inside is as the author 
wrote them? If the reader is unsure who to blame, can't they pretty easily go 
to her twitter account and check for themselves? It seems like adding sic here 
is kind of a dick move, and mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making 
the kind of mistake that college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond 
that) everywhere make all the time.
 
This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no particular 
reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more trite and banal 
than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she is just living her 
life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then gets thrown under the bus 
by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am overlooking something?
-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com 
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
 
-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com 
 
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
 .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you 

Re: [TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[Adam Bowie]

A bit of Googling suggests that quite a lot of outlets have used *sic* in
their reporting of the quote. But I suspect that's largely because they're
using an agency report as the backbone of their stories.

>From a good piece I found from 2014, it looks as though AP introduced
*sic *into
their stylebook around then, and I strongly suspect that it's their report
that has been used as the substance of many of the other reports that quote
Zucker.

The same piece (
https://stancarey.wordpress.com/2014/04/29/the-pedantic-censorious-quality-of-sic/)
also talks about how sic can be used in quite a superior way, especially
when the mistake is common and one that the publication in question
probably makes quite a lot. "Who" v "Whom" is noted.

Personally, I think that small grammatical errors are fine to be glossed
over, but more substantive mistakes should be noted, particularly where
it's factually incorrect.

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, PGage  wrote:

> I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
> journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
> presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
> Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
> and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):
>
> “I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
> partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
> of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
> content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
> doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
> and respect.”
>
> I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
> then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
> and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
> from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
> like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
> public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
> of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
> everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
> to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
> themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
> mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
> college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
> make all the time.
>
> This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
> particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
> trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
> is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
> gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
> overlooking something?
>
> --
> --
> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "TVorNotTV" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Sic or Dick?

[PGage]

I am interested in the feedback of those here who work in media or
journalism or editing of some kind on how Yahoo News handled this
presentation of a tweet by "Days of Our Lives" star Arianne Zucker on the
Trump Tape (she was one of the women who was the subject of his bragging,
and the target of Billy Bush's pimping):

“I am a strong, independent, hard-working mother, business woman and
partner to a great man,” she wrote. “I have grown to learn that the words
of others cannot effect [sic] the value of my self-worth or define the
content of my character. How we treat one another, whether behind closed
doors, locker rooms or face-to-face, should be done with kindness, dignity
and respect.”

I of course understand if this was a verbal quote given to a reporter, who
then transcribes it and wants to indicate that the subject said "effect"
and not "affect", and does so with "sic". The same goes if the quote is
from a book or hard to obtain periodical or private letter. But in a case
like this, when the quote is obviously a transcription from the subject's
public and easily available writing, and does not really change the meaning
of the passage, don't the quotation marks themselves indicate that
everything inside is as the author wrote them? If the reader is unsure who
to blame, can't they pretty easily go to her twitter account and check for
themselves? It seems like adding sic here is kind of a dick move, and
mostly serves to embarrass the subject for making the kind of mistake that
college freshmen (and many of us who have moved beyond that) everywhere
make all the time.

This is the fist time I have ever heard of Ms. Zucker, and I have no
particular reason to defend her (and the substance of her quote seems more
trite and banal than average to be honest). But it seems a bummer that she
is just living her life, gets blindsided by Trump and Billy B, and then
gets thrown under the bus by some pedantic copy editor. But maybe I am
overlooking something?

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[TV orNotTV] Re: Was thinking what was your station's daytime schedule back in the day?

[daniel anderson]

I will admit it though: I used to watch reruns of *St. Elsewhere *on TV 
Land when the network channels went to soap operas(yuck!) 

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 8:22:12 PM UTC-4, daniel anderson wrote:
>
> in the 80s, my NBC affiliate was showing Phil Donahue after the "Today" 
> show with Bryant Gumbel and Jane Pauley- until 1988, when they got the 
> rights to rerun "St. Elsewhere"- Phil moved to the ABC affiliate and got 
> the pre-news slot. The NBC affiliate had at least several diffrent shows 
> following "Today" when Deborah Norville was on "Today"- from memory there 
> was a courtroom drama with Raymond Burr, a show(can't remember it's title) 
> with John Palmer(who had left NBC in 90), "Tic Tac Dough"(with Patrick 
> Wayne). What show/shows followed the morning shows back in the day where 
> you lived?
>

-- 
-- 
TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"TVorNotTV" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [TV orNotTV] Debate II

[PGage]

I don't think we wand the moderators to control what kind of information
the candidates offer. It is up to the voters to reward or punish candidates
who choose to offer less information. Indeed, I think we are seeing
evidence that this is what is happening; most observers thought that Trump
spent more time in both debates avoiding and deflecting, he was judged to
have lost both debates, and his polling numbers went way down after the
first, and may well go down after the second (it will be hard to determine
this for sure, as it will interact with the Video fall out).

In Debate II the moderators were not tasked with asking questions, but they
were involved in selecting questions, and did follow up. There were several
non-substantive questions (particularly the first that you mention, and the
last), but even these were not of the "boxers or briefs" variety, and were
at least to some extent relevant to the decision voters have to make, in
terms of character and temperament. But there really were a number of very
substantive questions, about energy and Syria and tax policy, about
Hillary's relationship with Wall Street and her email issues, about Trump's
video comments (Cooper held his feet to the fire on this, and insisted on
referring to it as "sexual assault", and got Trump to go on the record
denying that he had ever done any of the things he boasted about, which
will be a problem if anyone later goes on the record saying that Trump
groped or kissed them without permission.

I am not by any means defending the dignity of the events, or saying they
are ideal ways of communicating with voters. But I doubt many Americans
actually get anywhere near as much substantive information in any 90 minute
block of time during the entire year as they do during the debates. I don't
know if you have ever read the Lincoln-Douglas Debates (or watched the
great series on C-Span some years ago), which are often assumed to be the
gold standard for debates. They are fascinating, but I doubt very much that
the current American electorate would really be up for a three hour debate
consisting of first a 60 minute speech, then a 90 minute speech, then a 30
minute response. If it were up to me they would have fewer questions and
maybe 5 minutes for each response, rather than 2 minutes, but as it is I
still think they serve a useful purpose. And I would rate the moderators
from Sunday night as the best of the last three cycles or so.

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Kevin M.  wrote:

>
> I don't dispute information was desciminated. What I claim is the
> moderators had next to no control over what information (talking
> points/passages from stump speech) the candidates chose to offer. The very
> first question was about what the candidates would tell children -- neither
> candidate came close to an answer. And it was like that most of the
> evening.
>
> The biggest obstacle in trying to get information from these two
> particular candidates is in order to get to the information, voters have to
> endure name calling, shouting, accusations, and interruptions. I don't know
> how many voters came from a home where parents fought, but from my
> experience, when mommy and daddy argue, the kids cover their ears and look
> away until the shouting stops. Yes, Hilary offered specific details about
> her health care plan, but to get to it, voters had to endure the proverbial
> mommy and daddy fighting... if I was an undecided voter, I would not be
> motivated to listen to anything said after one candidate repeatedly calls
> the other a liar and one candidate threatens the other with prison. A
> debate moderator is charged with keeping the candidates in check. At best,
> last night's moderators served as time-keepers.
>
>
>> As we all remember from our junior high school history classes (and now I
>> guess from Broadway Musicals) democracy has always been a high BS
>> enterprise. That is part of the price we pay. All the more reason it is
>> important to have some ways of managing the BS and try to keep the playing
>> field level. I thought the moderators last night did about as good a job as
>> I have ever seen under unusually difficult circumstances.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>>
>> --
>> --
>> TV or Not TV  The Smartest (TV) People!
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "TV or Not TV" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to tvornottv@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> tvornottv-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "TVorNotTV" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
> --
> Kevin M. (RPCV)