On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 2:28 PM, PGage <pga...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Daniels made that the highest rated 60 Minutes in ten years, highlighting > one of the questions I had about the whole thing. I dont think it was > unprecedented, but how journalistically ethical was it for 60 Minutes to > hold the interview for two weeks? I read they spent a lot of time editing > it, but if it was really newsworthy (and it wasn’t really) shouldn’t they > have got it to air last Sunday, rather than wait for her lawyer to pimp it > so expertly on cable news, and for the huge eastern time zone audience > watching the NCAA lead-in)? > > I am not a journalist, but I'd have thought that holding over something like this was fine. While CBS may well have just been looking to maximise the audience, they might also have been taking legal advice, or seeking to stand up elements of the story. It's a long shot, but wouldn't you at least try to see if 7 year old parking lot CCTV might have been available?
In any case, holding onto something like this for ratings purposes is also a risk. The story could easily have moved on, and they'd have been left with an interview that didn't fully meet where the story was currently at. Someone else might have given a rival media outlet a bombshell interview that left this as an also-ran. Journalists can and do sit on stories for periods of time for all sorts of reasons, including commercial. But the longer you delay, the bigger the risk that someone beats you to the punch. Adam -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tvornottv+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
