tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4099256327243016993.post3790382238364002756..comments2013-03-13T20:43:45.258-07:00Comments on stilltalkintv: No Shock Here: Quake Coverage Isn't ModerateStill Talkin' TVhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10580135197407630860noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4099256327243016993.post-66575832108720107772010-07-03T19:14:11.108-07:002010-07-03T19:14:11.108-07:00Hmmm… and now, for some additional “perspective”, ...Hmmm… and now, for some additional “perspective”, let’s take another look at the coverage provided by the Buffalo News which you (conveniently?) failed to mention.<br /><br />Within 20 minutes of the quake’s occurrence, the paper’s web site prominently featured the event at the top of its home page. This was soon followed by a “live blog” from a bevy of correspondents and an apparently hastily (and shabbily) produced video vignette featuring the same sorts of “mundane” commentary which you so readily lampooned the television stations for including in their coverage.<br /><br />I think it’s important to mention this because these days more people visit the Buffalo News web site than subscribe to its paper and because well …like I said …you left that part out.<br /><br />Rather than comparing how television stations covered the event during their first regularly scheduled newscasts a few hours after it occurred to how The Buffalo News covered it the next day, perhaps a more fair assessment would have been to compare how the TV stations were covering it on their morning shows, ..which consumers would have been watching at the same time they received their paper.<br /><br />I think it’s safe to say that by that time the television stations had also given the story “second page status”.<br /><br />But then again, being fair was never your forte during your years at the paper. <br /><br />And, during that time, I had my own sources at One News Plaza who informed me your column was, shall we say, not “exactly” among the highest read.<br /><br />This only served to convince me that your column, far from serving as a means to convey the goings on in the realm of local television for the few who cared, really more or less served as a means for the Buffalo News to bash competing forms of media which over the years have eroded its customer base.<br /><br />This wasn’t done overtly, of course, but could be readily detected by reading between the lines, where the (not so) subtle message was, “..this is why you should read the paper..this is why you can’t trust other forms of media especially TV …so please, God please, continue to buy our paper” , ..etc, etc…<br /><br />And while an honorable word or a “shout out” would be tossed from time to time to your favorite individuals in local TV, I suspect they were mostly individuals who were willing to violate the trust of their employers by leaking to you sensitive or confidential information about their workplaces, which you were all too eager to accept as fodder for your next column.<br /><br />And in case you can’t tell by now, I always found that… and therefore you …rather disgraceful.<br /><br />While it doesn’t surprise me that the early retirement incentive provided by your former employer was generous enough to convince you to give up your cushy job and force you to publish a less flattering picture of yourself, I am somewhat surprised that your compensation package apparently came with a clause that you continue to shamelessly shill for the fish wrapper for which you no longer work ….or at least I didn’t think you were still working for them.who'dyoueverplay4?https://www.blogger.com/profile/07158475902217962678noreply@blogger.com