Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Are_grits_groceries

(17,139 posts)
13. I agree.
Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:32 AM
Jan 2014

The people we see on tv are 'guided' by their producers. She is reading a 'Breaking News' item as it is put on her screen. She probably has no heads up as to what it is until she has read it. This is SOP for all networks.

The reporters at the desks we see would no more ignore their producer than you would ignore your boss. They can talk to them later about it, but they are not about to throw a fit on air.

As far as Rachel Maddow goes, she also has a producer she relies on. If that producer receives what is sent to him as 'Breaking News', he are going to pass it on. I don't know how much leeway the producers have. Although the term has been rendered practically useless, it is an item that needs to be immediately addressed. They all may discuss it later, but you will not see a kerfuffle on air.

Rachel does have a great deal of say about what subjects are covered and who appears on her program. However, she is not free to do as she pleases in all matters.

Andrea Mitchell isn't a favorite of mine. However, blaming her for this is unfair. Anybody could have been sitting in that chair when that happened.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Serious Journalist&...»Reply #13