Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

[CM1847]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

Just cause you think something is classless and inappropriate doesn't mean we can't get a good chuckle out of it

As I said, it was a horrible joke without even considering class. It was just bad humor, if you want to make fun of the subject, write a good joke. It wasn't a bad joke because some may think it is inappropriate, it was a bad joke because it wasn't funny.

[RubenDouglas]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

yeah, it wasnt funny at all. i was more confused than anything else. nancy is bad at acting. shes never that nice to anyone... way to blow that joke open and expose the person you really are/

[sense]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

Yikes. I would have to decline the offer.

On her show, every "criminal" is guilty until proven innocent.

I thought i was the only one who thought that.

[bjf1377]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

As I said, it was a horrible joke without even considering class. It was just bad humor, if you want to make fun of the subject, write a good joke. It wasn't a bad joke because some may think it is inappropriate, it was a bad joke because it wasn't funny.

Fair enough, sir, fair enough

[JRod]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

CNN doing jokes now...are they trying to get the Jon Stewart market.


This is why cable news is worthless. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News is worthless. Network news isn't much better.

[BGarrett7]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

As I said, it was a horrible joke without even considering class. It was just bad humor, if you want to make fun of the subject, write a good joke. It wasn't a bad joke because some may think it is inappropriate, it was a bad joke because it wasn't funny.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on what is or isn't humorous. I found it to be funny, you didn't. Oh well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

[SPTO]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

CNN doing jokes now...are they trying to get the Jon Stewart market.


This is why cable news is worthless. CNN, MSNBC and Fox News is worthless. Network news isn't much better.

It's a shame too. I can't believe CBS spent all that money on Katie "Freakin'" Couric when they had Bob Schieffer. They could've given the job to John Roberts but he bolted to CNN.

I do have to say tho there are some good news anchors/personalities. I like Lou Dobbs, Heidi Collins and Wolf Blitzer. There's a guy on CNNI who's very good but he's a flaming gay man (nothing wrong with that) by the name of Richard Quest.

[RubenDouglas]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

It's a shame too. I can't believe CBS spent all that money on Katie "Freakin'" Couric when they had Bob Schieffer. They could've given the job to John Roberts but he bolted to CNN.

I do have to say tho there are some good news anchors/personalities. I like Lou Dobbs, Heidi Collins and Wolf Blitzer. There's a guy on CNNI who's very good but he's a flaming gay man (nothing wrong with that) by the name of Richard Quest.

isnt the news just news? or do people care more or listen and take to heart someone they like more than a no namer?

I guess im indifferent to news and anchor personalities.

give me someone who doesnt stutter, look at their notes too often, and give good eye contact.

[SPTO]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

isnt the news just news? or do people care more or listen and take to heart someone they like more than a no namer?

I guess im indifferent to news and anchor personalities.

give me someone who doesnt stutter, look at their notes too often, and give good eye contact.

Well I come from a belief in the news anchor as being someone who has a handle on the issues in the world and having a wealth of experience.

On the network side of things it's the anchor that dictates the editiorial slant of the newscast and how the news is presented. A classic example of this is how Peter Jennings ran WNT. He'd often call reporters and tell them how to present their stories and what they're doing right or wrong etc etc.

So basically the anchor is the editorial voice of the news. I don't really think Couric has that kind of experience to pull that off.

[Jistic]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

I think that reporting should be just that REPORTING. However 95% of all news: Network, Cable, Internet, Print is one big editorial. It's impossible to just report facts anymore.

I find it funny sometimes to hear how reporters choose their words. A few changes can make all the difference. It's also interested to see what stories are covered and more importantly what stories are ignored.

ABC news will focus greatly on how oil prices are going through the roof and how it might go higher and nobody will be travelling etc. THen they talk about how nobody's buying houses...etc. BUT that same day you'll not hear a word about another excellect unemployment report, jobless claims at a 5 year low. They focus on the negative data way more.

They're quick to talk about the 10 more people blown up by a car bomb in Iraq, or give you a running death total. But they never seem to get around to talking about any of the positive changes over there.

They also do a lot of speculation. When reporting on a potential bird flu pandemic they say a lot of "Maybe, Could, Might, Someday, Worse case scenario, etc." Yet they truely have NO idea.

That's why you really need to think for yourself and listen to the wording of their reporting. So much of it is just junk.

[SPTO]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

I think that reporting should be just that REPORTING. However 95% of all news: Network, Cable, Internet, Print is one big editorial. It's impossible to just report facts anymore.

I agree to a certain extent which is why one should never take what they hear and see on the news at face value. Try to research the issues and come up with your own conclusions.

HOWEVER

There is still some excellent reporting. You just have to wade through all the crap first. As for the editiorialization of news, well it's been that way for years. There's always going to be an editorial stance because we're all humans we have to give a perspective to everything.

I think the reason why it's such a big deal now is because of the polarization of politics. In the '90s it was the vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Nowadays we here about the monolithic Liberal Media Bias. You can't have it both ways. Honestly I think it's somewhere down the middle.

BTW not to get political but most of the heat Bush is facing these days are coming from the GOP/conservative types. So you can't pin all the blame on the "big bad media".

[Lintyfresh85]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

Is anyone else completely shocked by the X-Play video that was posted? I always wondered about Sesslar but for Morgan Webb to just come out and say that...WOW... Not that it matters as I find Sesslar one of the funniest people on TV, but wow... Can't believe I missed that episode... although it was probably a few years ago now since that comment was made.

[JRod]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

I think that reporting should be just that REPORTING. However 95% of all news: Network, Cable, Internet, Print is one big editorial. It's impossible to just report facts anymore.

I find it funny sometimes to hear how reporters choose their words. A few changes can make all the difference. It's also interested to see what stories are covered and more importantly what stories are ignored.

ABC news will focus greatly on how oil prices are going through the roof and how it might go higher and nobody will be travelling etc. THen they talk about how nobody's buying houses...etc. BUT that same day you'll not hear a word about another excellect unemployment report, jobless claims at a 5 year low. They focus on the negative data way more.

They're quick to talk about the 10 more people blown up by a car bomb in Iraq, or give you a running death total. But they never seem to get around to talking about any of the positive changes over there.

They also do a lot of speculation. When reporting on a potential bird flu pandemic they say a lot of "Maybe, Could, Might, Someday, Worse case scenario, etc." Yet they truely have NO idea.

That's why you really need to think for yourself and listen to the wording of their reporting. So much of it is just junk.

Well there's one newscast that does this. The Newshour has been proven year after year to show less bias and report a story right down the middle. Not too left, not too right.

Let's not forget that the news reporting of the watergate era is rarely done. Instead all anchors and reporters try to find the "watergate" in every single story. They put a sensational slant to every story. The reason is they are in the ratings war and if a story isn't really newsworthy but it gets ratings they will run it.

After the last generation of anchors left, I have no real reason to watch even network news. Brian Williams is not Brokaw and their news is quite frankly poor. Elizabeth Vargas and the injured newscaster is an experiment for ratings not to improve coverage. And Katie Couric... well I'm ecstatic that I'll get a good recipe for falafal while watching a story about terrorist bombing in Israel.

[Silverstring]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

Is anyone else completely shocked by the X-Play video that was posted? I always wondered about Sesslar but for Morgan Webb to just come out and say that...WOW... Not that it matters as I find Sesslar one of the funniest people on TV, but wow... Can't believe I missed that episode... although it was probably a few years ago now since that comment was made.

What video and what comment?

[SPTO]

Re: Nancy Grace Blooper on the Daily Show

Elizabeth Vargas and the injured newscaster is an experiment for ratings not to improve coverage.

There are some folks within ABC News who want to see Charlie Gibson given the anchor chair. I personally would love to see this as he's a solid guy, not too flashy but not too dull.

I don't now what's keeping ABC from giving the man the anchorship.