Do you think that CNN

September 12, 2001 9:15 PM

Do you think that CNN has the best coverage so far? I've appreciated that they've tried not to be too inflammatory. BBC has been much more graphic (honest) but I think evoking anti-Arab sentiment is a serious fear of the American networks when they choose not to show Arabs celebrating. MSNBC seems to be doing a pretty fair job. I'm not paranoid but is anyone else wondering what else is being withheld. (Sorry for the boring post but I really wonder who people have been impressed or disappointed with so far.)
posted by wsfinkel (61 comments total)

Every time I turn to Fox News, they always seem to have someone slamming a proverbial shoe on a desk, saying something inflammatory and horribly biased. I heard that Fox News favors the right-wing interests - is this true? Regardless, they have my vote for most disappointing coverage, by far.
posted by popshots75 at 9:23 PM on September 12, 2001

I keep flipping between them all, but seem to come back most often to MSNBC, despite the smugness of some of their anchors.
posted by rushmc at 9:27 PM on September 12, 2001

Fox also ran footage of the celebrating in the streets as background for Arafat's condemnation of the attack. Not exactly unbiased reporting.
posted by Nothing at 9:36 PM on September 12, 2001

I've been comfortable with the CBC coverage I've seen, but, then again, I haven't seen any today. I've found myself on ABC more than any other channel.
posted by mrbula at 9:36 PM on September 12, 2001

popshots: "... with deregulation, cable and radio have been bundled together into enormous audience-delivery systems for advertisers -- and for overtly ideologica broadcasting moguls of the right such as Rupert Murdoch." (from the Baffler).
posted by fishfucker at 9:37 PM on September 12, 2001

Erm, to finish - I have found CNN and BBC to be the best on TV so far, but frankly, Metafilter itself has been most useful for finding out what's happening.
posted by Nothing at 9:37 PM on September 12, 2001

I don't have cable or satellite so it's a battle between FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS. From what I've seen, Dan Rather forms his words better than Peter Jennings (but sprinkles in those metaphors that make you do a double-take). Tom Brokaw, however, retains his class, composure, and authority. NBC gets my vote. I assume this is similar to what's being shown on MSNBC.
posted by bloggboy at 9:38 PM on September 12, 2001

I'd like to second Nothing. Metafilter appears to have been one of the best on-line sources of breaking news, with events distilled nicely. Other sources include that Yahoo Group I lost (not wtcattack), and Australia's ABC Breaking News page.
posted by krisjohn at 9:45 PM on September 12, 2001

I'm glad someone brought up the issue of coverage. I'm a law student, and yesterday, when the announcement came, the entire school, pretty much, assembled in front of a TV set on ABC News with Peter Jennings. And, despite the horror of what was going on, laughter ricocheted around the room at ABC's gaffes. Particularly, where Jennings was talking to someone in a TV studio where the background noise was swallowing out what he was saying. Jennings said: "Can you turn around and ask those people to be quiet?" And the man turns around and says: "Everyone be quiet, I'm on the news!" Perhaps this isn't so funny in print, but, as a testament to its hilarity, all the people around me--even those with tears in their eyes--had themselves a laugh. For that, ABC's coverage has been great (there were several other moments like that). But, I'll concede, CNN seems to have the most centralized reporting and the widest scope of coverage.
posted by adrober at 9:45 PM on September 12, 2001

i've been avoiding MSNBC. yesterday they verified that: the pentagon had been destroyed, a truck full of explosives was set to blow up the GW bridge, and a plane was headed for chicago. while CNN posted tentative versions, they noted that the stories were unverified and later corrected the information. MSNBC simply "disappeared" the stories rather than pointing out the errors.
posted by patricking at 9:51 PM on September 12, 2001

FWIW, the exact quote was, "Can you stop? I'm onto Peter!" Our classroom also giggled a little. That's the kind of stuff you usually only see on the local news.
posted by bloggboy at 9:53 PM on September 12, 2001

waitaminnit, a correction: the plane over indiana story was from a local news service, not MSNBC (sorry. yesterday's kind of a muddle of memories).
posted by patricking at 10:03 PM on September 12, 2001

All networks are very biased. Just watch on how the big 3 networks (NBC, CBS, and ABC) are anti-Bush. They are not obvious about it, but they will toss out a hint here and there. Look at how Rather would not cover the Gary Condit story, but would jump on other scandals that involved Republicans. Watch Fox News, you'll notice that they show both sides of the stories. Both views of what is going on. Why did they show Arabs celebrating in the streets? Because it happened! That is news. That is something I would want to know about it. To hide that is a crime. To show it is the truth and does not make you biased or a bad news broadcaster. Go to www.newsmax.com and you'll start to see how much the big 3 (plus CNN) have refused to report the news. Wake up people. To hide the news doesn't make them unbiased. Think of the big 3 (and CNN) like this; Clinton was Impeached! Yet they praise him and blame this on Bush. Hello???? Clinton had 8 years to do something, Bush had 7 months. As for CNN . . . they may have good coverage now, but they are changing their format to become more like Fox News. Don't believe me? Then why is Fox News beating CNN in ratings even if they are in half the homes as CNN? Makes you wonder. To show the truth does not make you biased. Remember that.
posted by tizimarc at 10:03 PM on September 12, 2001

Apparently Tizimarc is employed by FoxNews.
posted by wsfinkel at 10:10 PM on September 12, 2001

To respond to the first post, yeah, Fox News does have a right-wing slant--a Bush cousin is pretty high up in the chain of command, and it's speculated that Fox News contributed to Dubya's belief that he'd won by "breaking the news" that Florida "was" his...I watched Fox News all day yesterday, before I got to a cable TV. Very inflammatory and biased speakers--Pat Robertson came on and all but demanded bloody, faith-based war on Osama bin Laden LONG before any reports of actual connection to the events had been released. Lots of repeated footage of the Palestinean minority celebrating the attack. Remarkable lack of footage about Americans attacking other Americans, just because their skin happened to be darker.

Not that CNN's been perfect--they had Tom Clancy, for crying outloud. Nothing against Tom, but he's a novelist--not a terror expert.

But they DO have Christiane Amanpour, which more than makes up for any misdoing. Anyone else think that she's just the best damn international reporter on the planet?
posted by one.louder.ash! at 10:14 PM on September 12, 2001

Is ABC still declining to give a dramatic name to their TV coverage of this event? That won them a lot of points with me.
posted by kindall at 10:21 PM on September 12, 2001

I've found that leaving a TiVo on CNN is best, that way you can scan back 30 minutes, fast forward until they show something interesting, then fast forward through the breaks, bad interviews, and talking heads. Once an hour or so, I'm checking it this way, and it takes about 3-4 minutes to see everything of substance shown in their 30 live minutes.
posted by mathowie at 10:21 PM on September 12, 2001

Apparently Tizimarc is employed by FoxNews.

Or the Republican party.
posted by Rastafari at 10:22 PM on September 12, 2001

I am in SF but am able to get a feed of the CBS-owned local station in New York City through the wonderful workings of DISH Network and my high-definition box. My now-husband and I lived there during our college days 12 years ago and watched the local news in his dorm every night, so being able to watch the local coverage is oddly comforting, but cuts close, close to the bone. Lots of coverage on firefighters, cops, and the families in NYC, New Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn, desperately searching for their loved ones. It's heartbreaking. Lots of coverage on Giuliani -- even more than the national network exposure -- who I think is doing a great job.

While in the car, I heard the FoxNews TV feed on a local FoxSports-affiliated sports talk station, and I had to turn it off, it was so bombastic. That John Gibson guy is unbearable. Ugh.
posted by sbgrove at 10:29 PM on September 12, 2001

I watched Fox, ABC and NBC. Of the three, Fox was definitely the most fast and loose with the reporting, while ABC and NBC seemed less concerned with getting every new revelation out there before the others than they were with actually verifying the facts. Just as an example, tonight, Fox started speculating on body counts, all of which were about twice of what the other nets seemed to be indicating, if they said anything at all.

It just seems like the tragedy as it stood wasn't enough for Fox, so they felt it necessary to embellish their reports with statements like "There was also a busy mall underneath the Towers where 30,000 additional people could be trapped."
posted by MegoSteve at 10:36 PM on September 12, 2001

Yesterday I watched CNN, today I've been using MSNBC and CNN both.

Fox News? Not a chance. I was immediately disgusted by their bombastic, outwardly sensationalistic words.

It's been interesting to occasionally hop to ESPN for a different angle on this development.
posted by hijinx at 10:40 PM on September 12, 2001

Initially NY1 and CNN had decent coverage. CBS, ABC & NBC were good for replays.

Overall I would say CNN & NBC (I don't really care about whether they are right wing or left wing.)
posted by riffola at 10:43 PM on September 12, 2001

I've been switching between CNN and ABC.

CBS and Dan Rather have made everything too dramatic. When my parents woke me up, before the second tower had been hit, Dan Rather was using old-fashioned anchor-speak, making it sound as if New York had been nuked.

The three networks, NBC, ABC, and CBS seem to be showing the same footage over and over, perhaps afraid to lead viewers astray (anyone remember Gore winning?) Peter Jennings has been the most satisfying to for me.

CNN and the other cable networks have been giving a wider perspective, as some people have already covered.

And FOX is ridiculous. I walked in on my sister watching and you hear a guy yelling something similar to "Why don't we just bomb the entire damn middle east? I'm tired of waiting. Last time we were civil we had trials. If they touch or soil we have to nuke the bastards. The arabs can't get away with this." Yes, I'm exagerating a little, but it's absurd.

Yeah MeFi!
posted by antimarx at 10:57 PM on September 12, 2001

I'm sticking with CNN. I think overall - on web and television they've had the most united coverage. (Kudos for them dropping their whole homepage layout for a quickloading mostly-text page - someone listenened to the web geeks) Fox's constant flying graphics and themes and quick cut computer effects make me ill. Wish CNN would drop their constant haunting branding on the screen. And the border that covers the lower third of the screen keeps obscuring important imagery. I think Paula Zahn is doing a great job. The dorkus they have with her I could do without but Fox seems intent on being inflammatory and over-dramatic... I think the networks should trust the imagery and the narrative of the witnesses to deliver the story. These events have impact on their own without the need for theatrics... The shady black and white re-enactments of what might have happened on the planes are shades of Hard Copy. We don't need these over-illustrations. 'Regular' TV coverage seems sorely lacking in thoroughness - but like I said, I've been watching CNN mostly.
posted by ao4047 at 11:01 PM on September 12, 2001

I've found that leaving a TiVo on CNN is best

If you have a DirecTiVo with the 2.5 software update (and a dual-LNB dish), you can do this with two channels. Watch one for a while, then switch to the other tuner (which has its own half-hour buffer) and scan through to catch anything you missed, then switch back to the original tuner and do it again. Repeat until you are horrified and/or depressed enough to stop.

I spent about an hour surfing this way this evening, swapping between CNN and MSNBC or Fox News.
posted by kindall at 11:17 PM on September 12, 2001

Tom Clancy was on Charlie Rose last night too. I think he was drunk, though maybe he's just beligerent and obtuse normally. They kept him muted for alot of the time to keep him from breaking into other people's comments.

Out of all the coverage I watched tuesday (alot) I was most impressed with BBC TV. One thing that really stood out was that they had something to the effect of "America is reaping the fruit of its human rights abuses around the world". CNN reported this today too, but in much weaker language.

I think the attack was a horrible, inexcusable act, but we do go around abusing the other 5.5 billion humans on earth alot, especially the poor ones, which is basically everyone but us and europe. I don't mean this post as trollbait, but just to say that we should all ask ourselves why so much of the world hates us, some enough to dance with joy at the news of this attack.
posted by eth00 at 11:18 PM on September 12, 2001

When my parents woke me up, before the second tower had been hit, Dan Rather was using old-fashioned anchor-speak, making it sound as if New York had been nuked.

I found Rather's delivery strangely compelling and not inappropriate. This was the same tone the greats would have used when covering Pearl Harbor and JFK. If it was appropriate for those events, the worst you could say of it now was that the style is simply out of fashion, or that Rather looked foolish trying to emulate his idols. However, I think Rather truly believes that that is simply how Good Coverage is Done, and he was doing the best job of it he knew how. I'm not entirely sure he's wrong.
posted by kindall at 11:22 PM on September 12, 2001

In order of about 10 hours of coverage: CBC, BBC, CBS. CBC gave the best overview of foreign policy and international reaction, partially stating that the US is not a terribly popular country outside its own borders. BBC said the same thing on yesterday (today’s GMT) show. None of the other networks have even ventured to suggest anything remotely like that. All the American networks have failed to put any analysis into the story, explaining, in a serious way, why someone would want to attack the US.

What little analysis I’ve seen deals with how hard and fast a retaliation should come.

I guess I’m expecting too much.
posted by raaka at 11:24 PM on September 12, 2001

It's pretty much been all ABC (America) here in Korea, on the Armed Forces Network Korea (AFKN), which is pretty much the only free-to-air station in English. Not surprising, since I recall reading recently here on MeFi (unsubstantiated or not I don't know) that ABC is pretty much the US Armed Forces lapdog.
There was an hour or so of Dan Rather at the beginning (I spent about 10 minutes here on MeFi after the original posts and then remembered television and switched it on, and so watched the horror unfold live), oddly, and then they switched to ABC, pretty much exclusively. All the Korean language stations had frequent live voice-over translations of CNN streams.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:44 PM on September 12, 2001

MSNBC is ony good because Chris Matthews was on doing interviews earlier this evening?

Chris Matthews: So is Bin Laden gonna wake up with his dismembered penis in his mouth or what? Goddamn these godless bastards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
posted by ttrendel at 11:52 PM on September 12, 2001

Just stop it now, ok? I have no idea what you're talking about, but "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is totally unnecessary.

Thanks.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:07 AM on September 13, 2001

I had the choice between NHK (and all the other Japanese networks), who were reporting 6 dead even after the 2nd tower collapsed, and Armed Forces Radio.

When I turned on AFN, they had the CNN broadcast until about halfway through the Clancy interview (great speaking voice, and knowledgeable about the subject of intelligence, though not necessarily an expert). When he suggested that more money be spent on intelligence, as opposed to defense, AFN cut to CBS.

I found that, having audio only, CBS was a huge step down. That and Dan Rather constantly apologizing for the "rough" language on the tapes they were playing.
posted by chiheisen at 12:35 AM on September 13, 2001

Everything is cool, Stavros

That question mark at the end of the first sentence was supposed to be a period. Why all of the exclamation points?

1. they are simply under-used.
2. it was a very bad imitation of Chris Matthews. Just be glad you only read it. Chris Matthews' unexplainable enthusiasm is not included in my already limited comedic-repertoire.
posted by ttrendel at 1:12 AM on September 13, 2001

the proper use of hyphens is not in my repertoire either.
posted by ttrendel at 1:14 AM on September 13, 2001

Sorry ttrendel. I read it literally, not having a clue who Chris Matthews is. My bad.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:36 AM on September 13, 2001

BBC and CNN are pretty much all I've managed to get here in Denmark. No major complaints about either, and I must say that CNN has really managed to pack in a lot of information with it's scrolling banner at the bottom of the screen, title bars, and of course, live coverage. It's almost too much to process at once. Minor quibble is the standard one about info-tainment these days, i.e., the tendency to add unnecessary dramatic embellishment and speculation (as if all this wasn't dramatic enough!) -- comments along the lines of, "one wonders at the horrible last moments aboard the plane before impact" (I'm paraphrasing here, and I don't remember whether it was BBC or CNN that I heard that on - it's become a bit of a blur). Seems these statements tend to come out whenever the talking heads try to fill up air time between updates and new video footage, etc. Personally I think I'd prefer silence to blather.

Other than that, though, I'd say a decent job done.
posted by topolino at 2:53 AM on September 13, 2001

All your western media is filtered to remove the uncomfortable truth about this situation.
Painting the USA as a helpless victim is as unhelpful as it is inaccurate.
A large proportion of the worlds inhabitants live in fear of violence, intimidation and death every day. They do not get round the clock media coverage. They do not get mainstream media coverage at all.
posted by asok at 3:44 AM on September 13, 2001

I've been watching the coverage pretty much non-stop here in Australia. Most of the Australian free-to-air stations have switched to one of the American channels. Sky News Australia, a pay TV channel is showing some American coverage (from CBS I think) and some of their own. What struck me as funny was how on Sky News Australia one of the top stories during the day was that Bin Ladin had been under house arrest in Afganistan, but I didn't hear a snippet of this on any American channels.
posted by Jase_B at 3:54 AM on September 13, 2001

Fox has been no more or less "bomabastic" or "biased" than the other major players. Dan Rather at CBS continues to amaze me with his monotone & drawn-out delivery. My biggest surprise is the MSNBC coverage - it has been more compelling & thoughtful than I first thought.

As far as individuals, I was very surprised by Jane Clayson of the CBC morning program. I despise the "Good Morning/Wake Up!" shows on the three networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) for their never-ending stream of "how to whip up a 7-course meal in 3 minutes, followed by a visit from Martha Stewart!", but I stumbled across her interviewing (I believe) the brother of one of the doomed pilots. Clayson's face was not poised in a standard, Barbara-Walters-issued "this is how pain looks" expression. Instead, Clayson herself appeared to be struggling to get through the emotions; her lips were tight, her voice was tense, and it seemed genuine. Touching.
posted by davidmsc at 4:36 AM on September 13, 2001

Don't tell my wife, but I think I'm in love with MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield. She kicks ass. Did you see her Tuesday? She was covered in soot all day long! Junk in her hair and everything. She had to kick in a door of a building when one of the towers came down to escape the smoke and debris. She rules!
posted by elvissinatra at 4:52 AM on September 13, 2001

This is not to make any point of nationalistic pride, but various people I've spoken to here in the UK, (from several countries of origin or residence, including the US), have singled out the measured and responsible reporting of the BBC for praise (if praise is an appropriate word to use in these circumstances). Certainly having lived in the US myself, I can see the validity of all the comments about both networks and individuals who have been named in previous postings, and I have appreciated having only seen them via excerpts of US coverage.
Maybe it helps the ability to maintain journalistic objectivity when it's not your country that's under attack....though to give them their due, the BBC have managed to be pretty impressive even when their own buildings have been bombed.
posted by jonpollard at 5:07 AM on September 13, 2001

The BBC, by sheer weight of numbers: it's put the emphasis on its correspondents, rather than its anchors. (So you don't have the tendency seen on US networks, where the anchors are expected to say "profound" things to camera between reports. Not that I blame US anchors: it's just something that's come to be expected of them.) One of the BBC's US business editors was in the WTC for the first strike: his ability to keep it together since then is quite amazing.
posted by holgate at 5:52 AM on September 13, 2001

Here in Manhattan I have trended toward local news over the national stations--I want and need to hear about the travel restrictions, no-pass zones, neighborhood barriers, air-quality issues, parking regulations. I have enjoyed CBS the most; their no-nonsense reporting sticks to facts and footage. ABC is quicker on its feet, but its anchors are not as strong.

NBC is the most feminine, if you will: more personal stories, callouts to family, reactions from civilians, reporters batting back tears. My girlfriend prefers it but it's not for me. New York 1 was on top of things--I saw the gaping hole here first--but I quite frankly place my trust more firmly in the established Big Three and their staffs.
posted by werty at 7:28 AM on September 13, 2001

ABC has been the best by my reckoning, followed closely by the CBC and CNN. CBC is marked down for trotting in whatever "security experts" they can find off the street. They get very high marks for using analysts like Terry McKenna, who has a good handle on both the US side of things and the Canadian angles, without overplaying any Cdn angles.

NBC has been very disappointing. It's nothing specific, just a general feeling that they're missing the boat on some of the threads of the story.

Fox News was disgraceful, just terrible. Others have had Eagleburger on, but they restrained him. On Fox, he was ranting about very inflammatory subjects and never reined in.

CBS has been OK, but are hampered by Rather and (surprisingly, to me) Ed Bradley, who spend an awful lot of time in seeming self-congratulation.

ABC has been solid all around. Jennings has been very moderate, they have been on top of breaking threads to the story (though not always first), and their guests and experts etc. have been top-notch.

The best by far though? CBC Radio, including a 3 hour phone in with Rex Murphy yesterday. He talks like he has marbles in his mouth, but boy can he run a phone-in show.
posted by mikel at 7:36 AM on September 13, 2001

To be fair to Tom Clancy, he's not just some random writer - he does know an awful lot about military subjects and such. He has done quite impressive amounts of research for his books - several of which were nonfiction, quite detailed books about fighter squadrons, tank brigades, and such.
posted by Spirit_VW at 7:46 AM on September 13, 2001

'Believe it or not, some of the best commentary I've heard has been from 660 WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog." The have been excellent at adding a layer of emotion and local savvy to the coverage. Intelligent questions asked to experts. Intelligent talk about going after OBL. They will get my headphones again this afternoon.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:57 AM on September 13, 2001

'Believe it or not, some of the best commentary I've heard has been from 660 WFAN's "Mike and the Mad Dog." The have been excellent at adding a layer of emotion and local savvy to the coverage. Intelligent questions asked to experts. Intelligent talk about going after OBL. They will get my headphones again this afternoon.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:57 AM on September 13, 2001

Hmpf. Choice would be a fine thing. Here in Singapore, us non-cable connected people get whatever Channel 5 decides to let you see...which wasn't much when the story first broke.

Metafilter and BBC World Service were my main sources of information.

So, thank you to all the MeFi users who posted updates and pictures and kept the reports accurate and to the point.
posted by netsirk at 8:11 AM on September 13, 2001

Perhaps for the better, the media is not pointing out also of horrible likelyhoods. All that collected blood is not going into any victims. Also, despite what they're saying, Manhattan below Chambers St. will be a dead zone for months.

They keep saying cell phone calls are coming from the WTC debris. I wonder how much of the concourse is left. I wonder if they're searching via the PATH tunnel and the E, 1-9 and N/R tunnels. Astonishingly, I was almost directly ground zero yesterday on Broadway in a 4/5 train. The air was clearly acrid. Papers were on the Wall Street and Fulton platforms. I can't believe they let the train go there, especially with adjacent buildings in danger of falling.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:30 AM on September 13, 2001

CBC had a very touching interview with an exec that survived the second tower - he was above the collision, and said most of his co-workers went back up instead of evacuating. You can tell that he was trying to stay cool and collected despite everything, but underneath he was devastated. That was the best interview I've seen on any network thus far.
posted by mkn at 8:46 AM on September 13, 2001

I will give Fox credit for keeping things interesting with a continual stream of commentators who have been anything but dull. This is a welcome departure from Jane Clayson's torturous interview style. I watched aghast this morning as she (and the dimwitted neanderthal Gumbel) asked a pair of architects "Is it possible to build a building which could withstand that kind of impact and heat?" They apparently wants fuel-laden jumbo-jet proofed buildings in New York. Okay, kids, whatever. They are a disgrace to news.

Kudos to whichever interviewer let Schwarzkopf spit out "We need to find the bastards who did this and bring them down!" on air, and followed it with no commentary, just a "Thank you, General." and a pitch to the next feature. Stormin' Norman said it better than anyone. Find 'em and don't let them ever ever do it again. Excellent -- I think that was probably a Brokaw interview. He's doing a much better job of this than anything I've ever seen him cover. I'm not a fan of NBC news, but Tom Brokaw is really keeping it together in a great way.

That said, I switch away from NBC when he's not driving the scene -- they're losing me with their repetitious airing of pre-fab "packages" designed for human-interest heartstring tugging. The interviews with firefighters, talking about their fallen comrades and how they're going to go get them out, how they loved Father Mike (Father Michael Judge, the Catholic chaplain of the NYFD who died on Tuesday) gah, what the hell was that for? It didn't add anything of substance, it just served to make everyone feel even more anguish. Cheesy, cheesy, bad, rotten the first time around, when it was repeated a few hours later it was absolutely abominable.

Give me Ollie North getting flag-wavingly patriotic and Pat Robertson calling for a Christian jihad any day -- you can filter their hyperbole and bombast through knowledge of who they are and what they stand for. There is no filter for unabashed appeals to our base emotions or reports designed for no purpose other than to bring us further down in the emotional mire. That's manipulative and wrong, and handsmacks to NBC for it.
posted by Dreama at 8:46 AM on September 13, 2001

i have come to think of peter jennings as a second father. ABC all the way!
posted by ggggarret at 9:03 AM on September 13, 2001

One local pop radio station has replaced their normal programing with the audio CNN feed, and we've been listening to it (much of which seemed very good on the overnight last night), and listening very heavily to National Public Radio. NPR has been uniformly excellent.

When we watch tv, we've been watching Peter Jennings or the BBC. I have great admiration for Jennings stamina, humanity, and cool-headedness. I'm wondering if the fact that he's Canadian by birth gives him a somewhat different view of this than the US born anchors have.
posted by anastasia at 9:06 AM on September 13, 2001

CSPAN has been running CBC and local NY and DC station feeds. TLC and PBS have been running the BBC. All good alternatives for different perspectives from the national US networks, which tend to all be indistinguishable.
posted by erogers at 9:07 AM on September 13, 2001

Dreama: part of the problem at this point is that, plainly, the stream of news - real news from the situation - is gone. In its place, the networks feel the need to run something in an attempt to keep people watching.

Maybe one of the things we can take away from this is that, when something truly important occurs, no matter what you're watching or listening to, it will be interrupted. That idea, coupled with the resumption of normal programming, will help defuse the networks' attempts at sensationalism.
posted by hijinx at 9:08 AM on September 13, 2001

I don't have cable, so I can choose from CBS, ABC, and NBC. I also get a channel that has been alternating between CNN and Fox. This has been my first exposure to Fox and I have to say guys like O'Reilly and that blond haired guy after him are terrifying. Watching them say "fair and balanced" is disgusting. I think ABC has been really good. CNN when Jeff Greenfield is on. (I know this is a bad time to be partisan, so I'm trying not to be, but honestly Fox has been very bad, scarey that people watch it and like it.)
posted by chrismc at 10:38 AM on September 13, 2001

Keep on being "terrified." Fox's ratings keep going up up up, MSNBC's are nonexistent, and CNN is scrambling to Foxify. Ha ha ha!
posted by aaron at 11:25 AM on September 13, 2001

Notable persons interviewed only by FOX during the first 24 hours of the attack: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, the Policy director from the Family Research Council, and three Republican congressmen. I didn't see a single left-of-center interviewee and did not even notice any "apolitical" guests.
posted by conquistador at 12:26 PM on September 13, 2001

Notable persons interviewed only by FOX during the first 24 hours of the attack: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, the Policy director from the Family Research Council, and three Republican congressmen. I didn't see a single left-of-center interviewee and did not even notice any "apolitical" guests.
posted by conquistador at 12:26 PM on September 13, 2001

Kudos, Dreama, for your right-on assessment of NBC (feh) and Fox News Channel (alive, if biased).

Oh, yeah...elvissinatra, you are correct. Ashleigh Banfield is the cutest of any of the current newscasters, topped only (maybe) by Jane Clayson.

Ladies: How do Peter, Dan, Aaron, et al, stack up?
posted by davidmsc at 7:46 PM on September 13, 2001