Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxii.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxii!tw8023
From: tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler)
Newsgroups: net.space,net.columbia
Subject: Re: Television coverage
Message-ID: <328@pyuxii.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 08:34:17 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxii.328
Posted: Tue Feb  4 08:34:17 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 04:46:09 EST
References: <11627@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, <15019@rochester.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.space:5545 net.columbia:2016

To me, the most agravating part of the coverage was the
stupid questions asked by reporters at the hastily called
news conferences.  At the one called at the White House
barely 15 minutes after the explosion, Larry Speakes told
the assembled reporters that the President had not made
a statement, but had just stood in front of the TV set
with a shocked and pained look on his face (just as most
of the rest of us did).  When the questions started, the
first three were "What did the President say?"  The twits
had just heard Speakes say he did not say anything.  The
fourth question was "How does the President think this
will effect the shuttle program?"  Now, how stupid can
you get?  If they ever have brain transplants, I want
one from a newsman.  They have never been used.

Latter in the day, my 15 year old son started keeping a
talley of the ratio between stupid questions and good
questions.  The stupid (I mean inane) questions outnumbered
the good questions 5 to 1.  What does this tell us about
the quality of news types reasoning power?  I will
leave that up to you folks.  As far as I am concerned,
they have shown that once again they should all be classed
somewhere lower than a snakes patootie.  I think the
classification "professional" should be dropped from
the lexicon when refering to the news media.
T. C. Wheeler