According to witnesses, they didn't kick up a ruckus at all. And he can't possibly be the only person to ever not have his DL on them.
Then, frankly, I think I would question their assignment editors and producers for not running the story as (at least in my opinion) the story met at least two of the major qualities necessary when judging newsworthiness.
1. Prominence
2. Proximity
And as far as major locals go, WOAI, KENS (Express-News), KSAT and KABB all ran the story and the story was picked up by the Associated Press.
Do you really believe that it deserved the high profile coverage that it got? I have to keep reminding myself that the media was not so much covering the traffic ticket, but the alleged racial slurs, which would've been the real story had it been true. So, I suppose that, at the time, the rumors were enough to make it a story. Of course, it disappeared very quickly.
And I completely agree with you that it's the individuals who are doing the bashing and not the media. I don't see anything wrong with her camera time during games. It's part of the show. I just don't understand why people get so worked up about it that they feel it necessary to bash her personally and claim that she's looking for attention by going on road trips.
I guess what hacked me off is that I'm used to seeing two sides/opinions in the editorial section. If the focus was on Bush, we would've seen those in favor and opposed. This focus was completely anti-Eva without any opinion in her favor and I don't like that kind of one-sidedness in an editorial/view section. As I have mentioned, I hope that others send their rebuttals so that the other point of view can be read.
As far as the coverage the story recieved (from the print), I thought the amount was fine, but the placement was poor.
I don't believe it should have been above-the-fold, and not because the story didn't matter, but that certainly couldn't have been the most dominant story of the day, but I don't remember what else was there that day.
As far as broadcast goes, KSAT almost always puts the Spurs above everything else, going so far as to running game highlights from the previous day at 6 p.m. and running it as recaps instead of previews.
I would bet money that both Instant Replay and Sports Sunday will have something on it tonight.
For the second part, generally speaking, people talk more about what they like rather than what they dislike. I bet far fewer people wrote in to the EN to tell them that they thought their coverage of the story was great ( , I'd bet nearly none).
As ME at The Star, I get an exponential amount more of negative letters than I do positive. That's the nature of the beast. Also, there are guidelines that I'm sure the EN has with regards to running letters. I'm not going to claim that they withheld positive letters, but I can give them the benefit of the doubt that they probably wouldn't have held letters praising them.
I sometimes wonder if I should run those letters that compliment us in The Star as you begin to wonder if readers really care that people thought you did great.
Also, how many people would write a letter to the editor to say that Eva didn't do anything prior to today's issue?
The one letter commented on the poor placement of the story. I am only guessing that there may have been other letters complaining about the placement of the story along with the possibility that it was run to give negative exposure to Eva. I recall the negative stories last season on how she was a distraction to Tony and how she was somehow a negative influence on the team. Even Buck Harvey's column today took a few supposedly funny jabs at her. As I said, I am only guessing that there have been a few positive letters, but we'll never know because the EN doesn't run them. Or at least they haven't so far. I usually see rebuttal letters to editorials, so I'll be looking to see if they print some here.
Id like to ask the people that complain about the placement.
What has happened in IRAQ any differently, THAT YOU HAVENT HEARD A MILLION TIMES ALREADY ON THE RADIO THAT DAY PREVIOUS??!?!?!
If thats all this person has to do, is beef about freakin placement of a story.
Then she needs to pick up sewing, spinning, yoga, or whatever the .
Excuse me all to . I thought this was an open forum.
TPark, I really wish you would learn to make sense. Sounding intelligent and complaining are not mutually exclusive, you know.
Park,
Two points I'd like to address in your statement.
1. This isn't about Iraq, but the argument could be made that any events in Iraq meet more of the qualities of newsworthiness than the Parker story (but the Parker story met two and maybe three). Also, nobody is saying (much less M) that it should have been Iraq, only that it's an example of what they believe is more newsworthy than the Parker story.
2. Media outlets don't operate on what people MIGHT have heard on their compe ors. Also, why solely trust radio, print, broadcast or online? Isn't it always best to hear multiple summaries of what goes on rather than just one.
I don't take into account that my audience might have read something in the San Marcos Daily Record. I ask my people to provide better coverage than they do and let my readers decide.
ADDITION: People who get their news from the radio get news differently than those in print.
People who get news from broadcast outlets benefit from immediate coverage as well as vivid visuals with regards to news while people who get news from print tend to have more in-depth stories that go deeper than what can be said in thirty seconds.
ONE MORE THING: Looking at the front page from that day, there really wasn't anything that deserved dominance that didn't get it. The story over the fold with the dominant image is a tease to a story about the tsunami remembrance.
The story to the right (HIV drug efforts) of "Desperate" has a bolder headline, but it's wire whereas Longoria is local (bylined by their reporter). The other local pieces are about the Saints visuals being removed from the Dome and an update on a local civil trial.
It's looking more and more than the Longoria piece didn't stand above the rest to make the above-the-fold placement, but was the most interesting of the front page's content and fell into that placement.
Last edited by Johnny_Blaze_47; 01-01-2006 at 10:48 PM.
The EN is a hack fishwrap. I only get it because my Puggle likes to take s on it.
You have a Puggle...how cute.The EN is a hack fishwrap. I only get it because my Puggle likes to take s on it.
The EN is a hack fishwrap. I only get it because my Puggle likes to take s on it.
He's sooooo cute!
And damn you Johnny_Blaze_47 for your journalism logic.
Hey, it's what I do.
And damn you Johnny_Blaze_47 for your journalism logic.
I will keep in mind that I should never try to have an irrational argument with you. You'd be one of those guys who would be all logical and and really piss me off.Hey, it's what I do.
Yes I have a puggle and his name is "Ozzy" named after Ozzy Osbourne..seriously, I will be lucky if he doesn't get rabies from stunned bats he might bite heads off or piss all over my carpet.
Just with journalism...I will keep in mind that I should never try to have an irrational argument with you. You'd be one of those guys who would be all logical and and really piss me off.
We'll talk some journalism ethics either at the next GTG or during a time-out at a future game.
Wow... you sure know how to turn a girl on. You must really get all the chicks with that line.
The more people talk about Eva and Tony the better for them. $$$
Nice one.Wow... you sure know how to turn a girl on. You must really get all the chicks with that line.
I only talk J-ethics if asked (or provoked), actually.
Does she deserve to get center stage at every game when others have been to Spurs game longer, and actually bought the tickets instead of boning the Starting PG, it's the price of s om.
Which reminds meAnd I completely agree with you that it's the individuals who are doing the bashing and not the media.
...not to turn my jokes into unoriginal commedic trainwrecks as well.Which reminds me
unoriginal?
I believe seeing "Goodnight and Good Luck," or at least knowing the history of the story (no pun intended), should be a pre-requisite for anyone who wants to start talking about media ethics.Can I have a few tails before we discuss the history of Edward R. Murrow?
Judith Miller would still have a job with the Times if it weren't for the little pricks who want journalism to be defined by certain, set boundaries.
While I believe what they said about Eva was wrong, and the way they printed it sent the wrong message, it is the right of the press to do that. In fact, I almost prefer it that way. Journalism is supposed to be biased. It is supposed to have a slant, whether you agree with it or not. If it wasn't biased, we'd call it "history" and our newspapers would come with hard binding.
Horray for individual opinions and freedom of the press. Horray for the ability to agree and disagree. You may not like it all the time, but it's better than reading from a text book.
I agree with what some of the original letters said, while it is bordeline newsworthy, it should not have been front page material. It didn't affect our city country or world, that Eva supposidely may have offended somebody
the baseline bums suck anyway.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote