"Serious Journalist" Andrea Mitchell Breaks Away From Serious Interview For - THIS BREAKING NEWS

[kpete]

?1390574202

In a nutshell, it is everything wrong with "traditional" media today.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/24/1272156/-You-won-t-believe-why-MSNBC-cut-away-from-this-interview

[babylonsister]

1. I watched that and was appalled. nt

[MADem]

2. TO BE FAIR....and I am no particular fan of AM...that was the PRODUCER's call--not hers.

She gets the feed in her ear from the producer and she parrots what she's told.

Hell, y'all have seen Broadcast News and other shows on those lines, we all know how it works.

You can hear in her voice that she's not pleased.

[tridim]

4. To be fair.... Rachel Maddow would never do that.

Nor would Ed Schultz. Only Morning Joe and Andrea Greenspan would, because they SUCK at their jobs.

[MADem]

8. You should NEVER say never, because you will be disappointed.

Their shows don't air when shit typically hits the fan, either. It's all about time-frame, and when news breaks.

And it has nothing to do with "sucking" at their jobs. When the producer yells in your ear, you jump. The person behind the desk, in front of the camera, is reading the teleprompter and conducting interviews that have been sketched out in advance. They aren't controlling the Big Picture, and if the producer jumps in and wants to change the trajectory, they're going to play their role as cog in the machine.

[Rex]

11. BINGO!

They do suck at their jobs!

[Hosnon]

14. If their producer demanded it, yes they would.

The host doesn't control that button.

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. I agree.

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.

[catbyte]

3. That is weird. How many Belibers did the person making that particular decision think was

watching MSNBC at that time of day in the first place?

[MADem]

9. The producer probably had his or her eye on CNN and FauxSnooze, and was "following suit."

No one wants to be 'bested' and that is what leads to these kinds of inappropriate juxtapositions.

[hobbit709]

5. First mistake is assuming Mrs. Greenspan is a "serious journalist"

[NuclearDem]

6. Oh for flying fuck's sake.

That's just embarrassing.

[AlinPA]

7. Andrea Mitchell is not a journalist at all.

[Rex]

10. Andrea Mitchell a serious news journalist? When did that happen?

I am glad I don't watch corporate news, it would just get on my nerves.

[JoePhilly]

12. I had that on the TV in the background ... and when she broke

away, I turned to see what the breaking news was ... expected something important ... some disaster, terrorist attack, earthquake, Christie being frog marched, something big!

Then ... Beiber.

I changed the channel immediately.