(Lost in the clipboard when I pressed send too soon):
When you watch CNN for any length of time, you realize that
their "play list" is much shorter and far less entertaining
From: Jeff Barr [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 6:52 PM
To: 'Matthew Haughey'; 'Joseph S. Barrera III'
Subject: RE: CNN breaking news (was: Re: <gasp!>)
Far be it from me to judge whether CNN is trustworthy, but I'll
dispute the thorough label.
I once spent a horrid afternoon at a resort trying desperately to
get the facts about some breaking news event I ended up going down
to the local internet cafe, paid my 12 pesos, and finding out what I needed
to know online.
From: Matthew Haughey [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 4:36 PM
To: Joseph S. Barrera III
Subject: CNN breaking news (was: Re: <gasp!>)
On 04:20 PM 3/22/2001 -0800, Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>Yeah, I know. I'm subscribed to breaking news also and I was totally
>puzzled why this was newsworthy.
I subscribed to the breaking news mail back when the "election" (do the air
quote thing with your hands as you read that) was still up in the air, and
I wanted to know instantly when news came in.
Since then, it's intrigued me. Why does CNN even do this? The messages
arrive with such urgency, but more (well-researched) details are anywhere
from 30 minutes to hours away from reaching their website. I've found the
messages to feel almost like rumors.
So on the one hand, CNN's brand image is that of the most trustworthy, most
thorough news organization out there, but on the other hand, they're
running this massmail rumor mill that basically spreads up-to-the-minute
I never understood how they reconciled this internally.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:14:46 PDT