Even the little words can be a problem. Grrrrr! On Jul 5, 12:50 pm, Joe Coughlin <[email protected]> wrote: > So many bears... > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > > Back when we had journalists who went to journalism school, they were > > taught that regardless of the specific form of media, it had to cater > > to those with an apx. 7th grade level of education. This is why on > > those ultra-rare instances where a journalist reports on a story in a > > North African or South American country, he/she must first give a > > brief geography lesson, because it is assumed the average consumer > > will not know where the country is. It is also why, when you watch any > > news report, the story is told three times (i.e. "We go now live to > > Bob Smith who is at the scene of a grizzly murder in Burbank..." "Good > > evening -- I'm at the scene of a grizzly murder In Burbank..." "That > > was Bob Smith covering that grizzly murder that occurred in Burbank > > this evening."). The masses are assumed to be prepubescent, > > semi-educated punks with no attention span and little to no interest > > in life outside their respective bubbles. And judging from the state > > of the union, one can hardly argue the point. > > > So, of course ABC would feel the need to first educate viewers on a > > pending big word. It would be practically unethical (by journalistic > > standards) for them not to. > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Doug Fields <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "I stand by my main point though. There are lots of words I don't know > > the > > > meaning to, and I am sure many of these someone like Chrstiane Amanpour > > does > > > know the meanings to a lot of them, and may use them on her show. I think > > if > > > you are going to watch a current affairs news program, you have to expect > > to > > > run into a few words you don't understand, and you don't need (and I > > think > > > most would not want) these to be defined on the screen." > > > > Agreed. Regardless of whether I knew the definition of a word or not, > > I'd > > > be offended by someone just assuming I don't know it, and would be > > > unable/unwilling to look it up without their pop-up assistance. > > > > Doug Fields > > > Tampa, FL > > > ________________________________ > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > > > Behalf Of PGage > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 2:43 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [TV orNotTV] Did Amanpour Need ABC's Pop-Up Definition? > > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Doug Fields <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> "I saw this, and could not tell if it was more funny or more sad. > > >> "Perspicacious" is not that obscure a word in the first place (I would > > >> estimate it around the 75th percentile level on the SAT)." > > > >> Personally, I'd say you're giving too much credit to the masses. A > > quick, > > >> non-scientific survey of about 15-16 people in my office resulted in my > > >> being the only person in the sample who knew the definition...and I have > > to > > >> admit to looking it up to confirm that my definition was indeed > > correct. To > > >> make matters worse, we're a hybrid education/technology company, so > > >> the demographic in my survey sample skews more-educated and higher > > >> vocabulary-skilled than the general population. > > > > Perhaps - my guess was that 25% of the population would know what the > > word > > > means, which would be about 4 of the people in your office, not 1. That > > > could be random error in the sample, or perhaps it is more of a 90th > > > percentile word than a 75th percentile word. > > > > I stand by my main point though. There are lots of words I don't know the > > > meaning to, and I am sure many of these someone like Chrstiane Amanpour > > does > > > know the meanings to a lot of them, and may use them on her show. I think > > if > > > you are going to watch a current affairs news program, you have to expect > > to > > > run into a few words you don't understand, and you don't need (and I > > think > > > most would not want) these to be defined on the screen. > > > > -- > > > 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 [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected] > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > > > > -- > > > 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 [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected] > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > > > -- > > Kevin M. (RPCV) > > > -- > > 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 [email protected] > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > > -- > +++++++++++++++ > Joe Coughlinhttp://www.twitter.com/inturnaround
-- 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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
