Yeah, is this something that absolutely needed to be rewritten? I mean, it's all basically facts. Conan O'Brien officiates a same-sex wedding on late night TV. How many ways can you say it? Is it worth the effort to change it? Why would you change something from good to less good just to make it "original"? They still didn't do *any* of the actual news gathering. Why must the phrasing be different to satisfy this need I'm hearing for it to be "original"or a product of the news organization they represent?
All I assume when I watch a show is that it has the imprimatur of the newscast reporting it, not that they created it. We know many examples where that isn't the case. On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Tom Wolper <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't believe that Kent Brockman writes every word he reads on the > local > > news, and I don't think it is an ethical duty to identify the author of > > every word. I do believe that the audience has a right to assume that > every > > word read by a news anchor is the product of the news organization he > > represents unless otherwise noted. In this particular case there was > > probably not a major editorial slant to the piece (though the "pushing > the > > envelope" phrase does seem to marginalize gay marriage more than > > heterosexual marriage - I guess if Conan had married a straight couple it > > would just have been a rip off of Sanders). But it is not hard to imagine > > just a slightly different set of circumstances - perhaps from a similar > NBC > > newsservice, and perhaps with a slightly more negative spin on the same > > story - and suddenly knowing the original source might be not just an > > abstract principle, but take on a practical significance. > > I have worked on environmental advocacy projects where a part of the > project was raising public awareness through getting a story on the > local news. This is what I learned about getting a story on the news: > the story has to be pitched to a news editor who probably knows > nothing of the history behind the story and has to be convinced it's > compelling. This is in contrast to a newspaper (sometimes), which may > have a beat reporter who has covered previous related stories and we > may even have a conversational relationship from earlier coverage. > > The TV news editor will not be invested at all in the content of the > story. What (s)he will be looking for is if the story is compelling. > and if it is controversial, so much the better. So you, the person > trying to get the story on the air, have to frame the story as > compelling and controversial or you are wasting your time. > > So now let's look at the Conan story: the newsreader says the Conan > may be pushing the envelope (compelling) by officiating at a gay > marriage ceremony (controversial). That phrasing is so simple and > effective that it would be hard for a local news writer to rephrase it > without losing 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 [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 Coughlin http://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
