On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 10:45 AM PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > I think we are many decades past the time where a poem star having sex > with a man who later became POTUS would not be considered news. Add in what > now seems a fact - that the man paid her to keep quiet about it in the > heart of a presidential campaign (even without the possibility of violating > campaign finance laws, or connection to Russian scandal through possible > blackmail, and I don’t think there is any question that we have a > legitimate news story. But yes it got grotesquely disproportionate profile. >
Pedantic rant follows: I suppose the definition of newsworthy is not set in concrete, but the sexual relationship was known prior to the interview, as was the payoff. Something that has been known for days (weeks? months? how long has this nightmare been going on?) is not news. As I indicated earlier, if Daniels was specifically speaking about where the money came from (backed by evidence), that would be news, as it potentially impacts a presidency. But I’m not even entirely certain those details would be something she would have firsthand knowledge of. What seems to have been covered was a personal account of two people I’m not related to. Details about how they met, or accounts of their sexual activity fail to meet any definition of news I’m aware of. That is not to say such accounts do not get treated as if they were news, but the way something is treated and the way something actually is are two different animals. Of course 60 Min also does celebrity and pop culture features (the best > story in the show Sunday was about a Greek NBA player). My beef is not that > they ran the interview, but that they allowed and seemingly cooperated with > her attorney to hype it for 2 weeks as a major news story, when it was not > > On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 7:01 AM Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 6:28 AM >> > There is nothing journalistically ethical about interviewing her at all >>> unless she was able to produce proof of crimes Trump committed regarding >>> the payoff. It was grossly irresponsible for 60 Minutes to televise her >>> claims of being threatened. Holding the interview as long as they did >>> without producing an interview of substance is pure, crass sensationalism. >>> >> >> I am the first person who would like to see Trump’s pelt nailed to the >> wall, but details of his sexual relationship with this woman won’t make >> that happen, and they distract from what’s really out there. Had she >> produced evidence in the interview of the specifics of her payoff coming >> from campaign funds or from some other agent or group that points to >> criminal behavior, that’s news. That she willingly had sex with a dirty old >> man is not news. I realize Anderson Cooper isn’t enough of a journalist to >> recognize the distinction, but I wish somebody at 60 Minutes could have >> recognized it and pulled the interview completely. >> > -- > Sent from Gmail Mobile > > -- > 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 [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- 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 [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
