Twin Peaks Usenet Archive
Subject: Re: Pre-emption
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Date: 1991-01-18, 14:07
In article <1991Jan18.firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> >There are also many citizens of the US with relatives involved in the
> >Persian Gulf events and I think that it's the *duty* of the networks to provide
> >those interested parties with continuous coverage. No matter what your feelings
> >may be concerning the rightness of the war, I think, as a citizen of the world,
> >you should be interested in it. I think that sitting around saying, "Damn this
> >war - Twin Peaks is pre-empted again!" while people on both sides are fighting
> >and dying is *incredibly* shallow and self-centered.
...and wallowing in it isn't shallow? I'm interested in hearing about
what's happening in the war. I'm not interested in hearing Dan Rather
speculate about what's happening only to be corrected a half-hour later.
It doesn't help to report to viewers that their friends and families
have been (confirmed!) hit with nerve gas when in fact there was no
nerve gas. That is downright irresponsible. I personally won't be
upset if Twin Peaks is pre-empted by news coverage of the war, but if
the networks have to find ways to fill up air time between bursts of
*real* information then why not air the regular programs with interruptions
as they are required? Let the news channels handle the filler (i.e.
anyone who can find Iraq on a map being interview as a mideast expert).
-- Scott Amspoker | Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | This space available (505) 345-5232 | unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott |