On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 10:32 PM, Steve Timko <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM, televisiongirl > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The Times is now trying to explain that Stanley was given too many >> assignments that day - she also had to cover the cable news reaction to the >> Supreme Court decisions. That's bogus because Curry's farewell was around >> 8:50AM and the Supreme Court decisions started trickling out after 10AM. >> Stanley didn't watch it live and didn't even bother to record it. For a >> paper with some good reporters who cover television - Carter, Stelter, >> Carrr - she's a disaster. >> > > Since the Supreme Court didn't make the decision on Tuesday, everyone knew > it was coming on Thursday. The Supreme Court decision is a once in a decade > kind of story. Her job would be to watch cable TV coverage before the > decision and after the decision. The hard news of the Supreme Court > decision overshadows the pop culture significance of Ann Curry. This is a > legitimate defense of spreading her too thin. > That doesn't mean she doesn't such as TV writer. > > Wait a minute. I agree the SCOTUS story was primary (though, for someone on the TV beat, the Today story is not nothing), and that this is a good excuse for her not watching the actual Today story. It is not a legitimate defense for her writing a review as if she had watched the broadcast, when she had not, or of misunderstanding and then misreporting what she saw on the Youtube. She could have just not written the Today story, or she could have noted she missed she actually the broadcast (and, apparently her DVR queue was full) and based her review on the Youtube. -- 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
