Experts who say nothing

[Mike_N_Ike]

Is anybody else getting annoyed at these interviews with experts who refuse to say a single thing?
I'm not talking about hiding information like damage estimates. I'm talking about when the news stations interview "experts" because they want to get their opinion and all they do is restate the facts. What is the point of breaking away to some guy who has been flown into the studio because of his experience on the matter if all he is going to do is tell us what has happened? That's what the reporters are for. It's like, they're all so scared to make any kind of inference or educated guesses as to what may be going on or what will happen next that they don't say anything at all.

I think that when it comes to making predictions, they should ask random people off the street. I'm positive they'd achieve more direct, meaningful responses...and we wouldn't have to listen through the bs political disclaimer garbage that these guys like to preface their "opinions" with so as not to damage their illusion of omniscience if they're ever wrong.

[welfareloser]

i understand and am similarly annoyed. the news stations don't want to be the only ones doing something other than 24 hour coverage of the "america under attack" or "attack on america" story (complete with snazzy little logo and grave background music) but that leaves them with a heck of a lot of time to fill and not a whole lot of new stuff to say. i have come to expect it, but i wish someone would try something different...

[chrissy]

Someone did, remember the Olympics in Atlanta? NBC gave the guilty verdict to ol' what's-his-name faster than the cleanup crews could pick up the litter.

No one wants to jump any gun. But yeah, I am getting tired of the same song sung by different voices.

[TheLoneGunman]

Not particularly in reference to this event, but I love the "live remotes" that are unrelated to the story.

For example:

Here is our roving reporter live on the street (a street similar to one in another city where there was a courthouse where someone was indicted)

Here is our reporter LIVE at a restaurant to report on some other restaurant where there was a problem

Here is our reporter LIVE outside the building where there was a news event just barely 3 days ago

Here is our reporter LIVE in front of something but we can't see it because it is dark outside

[BrewMaster]

It's pretty lame. I just saw a structural engineer on CBS say some worthwhile things, but he's the first in the past 24 hours to use his expertise.

BTW, did anyone see Lawrence Eagleburger (former Reagan staff member) yesterday on CNN (I think). He actually said "I never liked NY much." He didn't say it as a slam, just that he offered condolances. ANyway, he was an "expert" guest and he said even less than the reporters. It was a little bit of humor in the midst of the madness.

[johnnymk]

It's called the Great American Propaganda Machine. It's highly tuned and well oiled and can convince the average American any viewpoint that it wants to dish out. It is extremely homogeneous and it doesn't like opposing viewpoints.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by johnnymk
It's called the Great American Propaganda Machine. It's highly tuned and well oiled and can convince the average American any viewpoint that it wants to dish out. It is extremely homogeneous and it doesn't like opposing viewpoints.

there's also this "technique" of delivering "balanced" coverage:

in talking about issue X, they get a whacko with an extreme opinion, and another whacko with the opposite and equally extreme opinion, and they interview both of them about it. two whackos is crappy coverage, but the networks think it is so much more compelling than a panel of reasonable people.

in talking about issue X, the news agency invites 4 or five reasonable people with the opinion that the agency happens to like. then, for the sake of balance, the have a quick interview with a complete whacko who is really stupid and also happens to have a dissenting opinion.

newsweek has the best coverage in my opinion, often well-balanced, but they have their opinions and their opinions are sometimes easily discernable. i find them more palatable than time magazine or us news and world report, not because they are more balanced, but because they are more liberal and the other two are more conservative.

[Grimm]

I would rather the experts tell us nothing. They should be talking to the FBI so we can catch these monsters quickly. If they don't know how close they are to getting caught, they won't know when to run. One little leak to the news agencys of someting seemingly unimportant can tip someone off. They could bolt, or even wors, get caught by a mob and beaten to death before the FBI can interogate them (preferably with a belt sander).

We need to wait quietly and accept that we don't need information. I am willing to accept this because it increases the chances for a speedy resolution.

[larryxtreme]

I don't like how some of the reporters are so persistent on getting their questions answered. I have seen several instances where a reporter badgered a fire fighter or police officer with questions he obviously did not have time to answer. They were only trying to get people out of danger. Yet, the reporters only cared about getting their story.

I especially hate it when news channels repeatedly bring in victims of the attack. We see them cry over and over again. We hear about people jumping off the higher floors of the building, and some channels even showed footage of it. There was one guy who was brought on who claimed to have snuck through the security and flimed the disaster area. He looked Filipino/Asian, but I'm not sure. I mention this just for those who might have seen the same segment, and I am not implying anything related to race. Anyway, I got the feeling that he was just happy to be on TV. He tried to make a dramatic statement in the end, but he just didn't know what to say.

I'm not completely dissatisfied with the coverage. I want to know what's going on and I want to see the footage, but I just can't help but think that sometimes they are trying too hard to dramatize this tragedy. For example, as someone mentioned earlier, the logo/music are too dramatic and it's obvious they are trying to attract viewership.

Lastly, I know this is very cynical, but sometimes I feel like some reporters are just happy to have gotten the story. They seem very smug about it and sometimes I can even make out a little smile on their faces. I hate how they can even BEGIN to smile in such a tragic situation. I try to stick with watching Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather because they seem compassionate and sincere during their reporting.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by larryxtreme
I try to stick with watching Tom Brokaw and Dan Rather because they seem compassionate and sincere during their reporting.

interesting. i think dan rather is 100% class and professionalism. i think tom brokaw is a smug %$!!@#!! - he will deliver his opinion as if it was fact, like he can't even tell the difference. it just makes me wish he would take a different job more suited to opinion-spewing.

[TheLoneGunman]

Originally posted by larryxtreme
I don't like how some of the reporters are so persistent on getting their questions answered. I have seen several instances where a reporter badgered a fire fighter or police officer with questions he obviously did not have time to answer. They were only trying to get people out of danger. Yet, the reporters only cared about getting their story.

Several years ago, I was acting in a Movie-of-the-Week. It was supposedly about a building that collapsed in Utah because of liquifaction. The story was on the USART (Urban Search and Rescue Team) that was saving people and there was a bit of a love story too. My character was the nosey reporter who just got in the way and harrassed the rescuers.

I guess real life imitates art :heh: