RadioActive wrote:

I'm a bit surprised at how it was covered on broadcast TV. Or rather, wasn't covered. 

With respect, are we a bit stuck in yesteryear's thinking here? Is today's cord-cutting television audience really stopping dead in their tracks and thinking, "gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, may I please turn on that tele-vision and watch Uncle Walter show us a story?"

This is where radio can, and does, do justice for a story like this. The audience is quickly suffering from "terrorism fatigue" and, while this incident is rather local, it's touted as yet another "terror alert" (allegedly).   Also, here we are, again, with yet another "breaking" news event.  (Although, granted this might actually qualify as correctly breaking, the boy who cry wolf, cried too many times.)

And, at that hour, who do we expect to actually tune in?  High school kids, back early from their day of being co-parented by the state? Or, their parents, far too busy with those kids, fixing an after-school snack and bugging them to do their homework? Certainly commuters and workers are either in their car or working -- both nowhere near a television.

Now, had this happened during prime time, well, maybe, some eyes might be searching to rubber-neck.  But, what is there to see? Carnage? Hardly -- that would be expertly muted. Speculation? Aren't we all tired of that?

These times: they are a-changing.
 

RadioActive wrote:

There are a large number of people who don't have cable or may not have access to it. 

True, but how many of those people have the capability (or desire) to receive OTA signals?
 

betaylored wrote:

I was listening to Newstalk's coverage this afternoon. The acting police chief Peter Yuen (sp?) speaking during the news conference, talked about the two hotline numbers, first about the number for family members of victims. Then I'm quite sure he paused and said two key words "more importantly" and went on to speak about the second line, the one for people to call if they have information about this incident. If I did hear this correctly, will the media who obviously have recorded his words, comment on this, or let it go. Did anyone else catch it? This is one time I would like to be mistaken.

 
He was saying that getting info to victim's families is more important than tips. And he's right. A guy rented a truck and ran over people. It's going to be a big investigation but not a complicated one. He's still alive and will provide lots of info in the coming days. People need to know if their spouse is coming home tonight pretty quickly.

And in response to the person above who thinks Ellen is more important than coverage of the murder of 9 people on the streets of your city, please never become a program or news director.

Last edited by Prod Guy (April 23, 2018 5:29 pm)

Prod Guy wrote:

And in response to the person above who thinks Ellen is more important than coverage of the murder of 9 people on the streets of your city, please never become a program or news director.

I think you may have misread my post. What I said was when this kind of incident takes place, especially in your city, you DON'T keep showing "Ellen."

My argument is that local TV should have been on this a lot sooner than waiting until after 4 PM. It happened around 1:30 and that should have given them time to get their acts together. And I should note that just because there are cable news stations, the over-the-air broadcasters are also available on cable. If you're busy watching regular programming on one of them, you may not even be aware of what happened. 

Their licence comes with an obligation to serve the public. If eschewing "Ellen" for a day and losing the ad revenue is what has to happen, then so be it.  

The story was the lead item on tonight's 7PM BBC World News broadcast. About four minutes in length.

On a different angle, it was good to hear Barb DiGiulio doing an actual newsy talk show on Monday night, instead of the usual dreck like "Angel the Psychic" or "Who does the housework in your home?" She was smart, professional, informed, asked all the right questions and I wish CFRB would let her do news-oriented shows more often. 

As for GNR 640, they didn't do too bad a job, either, considering the station's past efforts. It's obvious their increased ties with Global has made a world of difference. They had reporters, experts, news conferences and more on air, a far cry from their earlier days, when they were never able to cover anything because they didn't have the resources. 

I did not hear CBC Radio 1 through all this, but I imagine they didn't have any troubles staffing their coverage. 

betaylored wrote:

in a perfect world there would be a "be advised, this is sensitive content" announcement before the most graphic sound clips/descriptions, hopefully people with younger children, and those with PTSD and other mental health issues will avoid the news, and listening to the radio.

C'mon. A truck ran over pedestrians -- do you REALLY need a graphic warning? How much coddling do you think the snowflakes need? Really?!

Irony, indeed. First, the Illuminati on here expect every channel to be wall-to-wall on this and now you don't want certain folks from turning on the television?

Easily solved: counter-programming. Oh, but wait... how are we to achieve this if you except all this graphic content to not be escapeable?!
 

RadioActive wrote:

What I said was when this kind of incident takes place, especially in your city, you DON'T keep showing "Ellen."

Why not?  You have how many local channels around here and they all have to show the same damned thing?  As sad a commentary as this might be regarding humanity some people really aren't interested in what's happening in the news, even if it's in their own city, unless it's directly affecting them in which case they'll have all they care to know already.

I'm really not trying to troll, here.  Honest.  But the days of the local TV station "serving" the community are long over, despite what the commission's guidelines suggest.  How many people PVR'd their favourite daytime show or soap or whatever only to come home from work and find "their" show pre-empted by something that, in all honesty, could be handled by a 2 minute bulletin during the show?

Radio is a bit of a different animal, though.  There's no real "program" to pre-empt on a talk station.  But why should a music station cut into their programming with anything more than a short bulletin and perhaps a blurb for the listener to switch to their AM news counterpart if they want in-depth information?
 

Peter the K wrote:

RadioActive wrote:

What I said was when this kind of incident takes place, especially in your city, you DON'T keep showing "Ellen."

Why not?  You have how many local channels around here and they all have to show the same damned thing?  As sad a commentary as this might be regarding humanity some people really aren't interested in what's happening in the news, even if it's in their own city, unless it's directly affecting them in which case they'll have all they care to know already.

I'm really not trying to troll, here.  Honest.  But the days of the local TV station "serving" the community are long over, despite what the commission's guidelines suggest.  How many people PVR'd their favourite daytime show or soap or whatever only to come home from work and find "their" show pre-empted by something that, in all honesty, could be handled by a 2 minute bulletin during the show?

THANK YOU!  Isn't it a sad commentary when those of us that disagree with an opinion here, have to be labeled a "troll" or compared to a previous poster?!  THANK YOU!

I get very frequent inbox messages from many here, agreeing with my "not so unique" views.  And, when I ask why those people don't actually publicly post, they cite the fear of the ire of those that think theirs is the only correct opinion.  Sad, isn't it, that those with opposing opinions get shouted-down and labelled via a bully-tactic to shut us up. My message is now, as has it been, that times change. What was the norm and tradition in media of the past, no longer can (or should) be the norm now.  But, go ahead, label me another troll -- I have thick skin. Ask yourself this: why are some so afraid to read a contrary viewpoint and be so threatened by it? 

Do hollow words, sent anonymously on the internet, REALLY cause your world to crumble? If so, I guess, your footing isn't as firm as you first thought.
 

betaylored wrote:

So very grateful I don't know you IRL cGrant. Wish the big yellow board had a Twitter-like "Mute" option. c Ya 😁

no but that's the thing.  we all need to know and understand trolls in order to move beyond their blah blah blah rhetoric  cGrant is cute simply because he knows how to sew discord and present a counterpoint diatribe, regardless of the topic offered..

It's all in good fun, right cGrant?
 

WilliamT wrote:

One man in a van terrorized innocent people on a sidewalk by driving into them. Just because you do not define the man a terrorist does not mean terror did not take place. 

Home British & World English  
terrorism
Definition of terrorism in English:
terrorism NOUN mass noun

• The unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
• ‘the fight against terrorism’‘
• international terrorism’

^^^The above courtesy Oxford Dictionaries.
​In the strictest sense, what happened yesterday has not, yet, been labelled as "terrorism".  The accused's agenda has not yet been publicly released.

That said, clearly he committed "terror".  BUT, in the loosest sense, "terrorism" could be used to describe any criminal act.  If you had your home broken into, when you got home, where you not terrorised?  How about the bank clerk after a robbery?  Were they not terrorized? etc.

I fear that the use of the word "terrorism" for any violent act will be neutered much like the urgent importance of the word "breaking" (as in "breaking news").

While Toronto might be in a state of terror, (chided on by the man that never said "no" to a photo/audio bite, John Tory), has a true manifesto-laden act of terrorism actually occurred? Will the media use that term to the point that people will ignore its significance?

(Much like "snow storm" is now largely ignored because it now seems to refer to a dusting of 2mm.) 
Or, was yesterday's incident a "test run" for future full-scale terrorism?

 

Bauerle and Bellavia covered it wall-to-wall on WBEN 930 Buffalo for the duration of the show (3pm, - 7pm). It was decent coverage, I had CFRB in the other ear and WBEN had his name before they did. Other than a few regional inaccuracies ("Yonge Street in downtown Toronto").

milton wrote:

Bauerle and Bellavia covered it wall-to-wall on WBEN ...

I wonder if they're still on it with the same intensity now it's apparent that the perp is 'one of theirs' rather than a Liberal Jihadist Hillary's Email Server Muzlemoid.