Show Pre-Emptions Anger?

[UniquePerspective]

(Move this to Talk is Right if necessary, I wasn't sure)

My inspiration for this is based on today's show, there was a pre-emption that blocked the second showcase showdown that was news about suspicious packages, and I'm kind of surprised about how some people actually seemed outright pissed that this came, when there was at least the possibility where it could have been a serious concern. So I guess, as long as it's not something like a Tiger Woods press conference, why get angry at news? It certainly at least could be something important.

[pete1974]

Because 99.99% of the time, the news story does not directly affect the viewer.  Even some of the bigger news stories out there don`t directly affect 99.99% of us.  How many of us were DIRECTLY affected by say, the Haiti earthquake for instance?

[priceisrightforever]

This same topic is taking place where I live due to the fact that our local stations broke into regular programing because of Tornado threats. I live in a area where the tv stations cover a very large area. There were two counties in the area that were under Tornado WARNINGS. The rest of the area was under Tornado WATCHES.

People actually complained that the CBS station broke into Survivor for coverage of the Tornado Warning. I don't understand why people would be upset about this. There was something major happening in our area, granted it did not affect the entire viewing area of the TV station, but the station has the responsiblity to report on dangerous situations. People are still complaining even after the station said that they would air Survivor at 11:35 on Saturday night.

As far as todays pre-Emption. Big deal. I am glad that we were informed on what was going on. Even though it looks to not be as serious as first thought, I'm glad that we were informed. The Pre-Emption lasted no more than 10 min.

Because 99.99% of the time, the news story does not directly affect the viewer.  Even some of the bigger news stories out there don`t directly affect 99.99% of us.  How many of us were DIRECTLY affected by say, the Haiti earthquake for instance?

Wow. Thats kinda cold.

[therealcu2010]

I absolutely agree with priceisrightforever's post. As much as we might not like our show being broken in to for a breaking news update, the fact is that today's news break was reporting a potentially dangerous situation.  Although I question why they couldn't wait twenty minutes until the noon news, it was a perfectly legitimate reason to preempt Price today...and we really only lost the second Showcase Showdown.

I'll admit that some of the news conferences (particularly the Tiger Woods one a few months back) are quite silly reasons to preempt normal programming, but the networks should absolutely be cutting away to report on potential issues of national security. (How much they should report is another story...but that's a debate for another forum.)

It is quite annoying to have a show you're trying to watch be cut in to by a news report, but sometimes it's really necessary, such as the case today. Besides, the show will be posted online in full this evening, so the parts that were missed can be watched then.

[compdude512]

As an aspiring journalist, I am thrilled to see CBS taking into account where news falls on the priority scale.  I am 1000% for pre-emptions when the pre-emption is for personal or national security reasons.  I am 1000% for pre-emptions when the pre-emption deals with an important announcement made by the President of the United States or any of his advisers.

I am 1000% against pre-emptions when the pre-emption is for a press conference relating to a pop-culture icon's apology speech regarding cheating on his/her significant other.  That is what ET, TMZ, and Access Hollywood are for.  Tabloid fodder deserves no pre-emption.

I am thrilled that CBS did this.  If they hadn't, I would liken it to an incident that occurred here a few weeks ago where two children were starved to death.  The murder of the two young children was breaking news, but the news found it more appropriate to cover the Colts postgame show.  I actually wrote an e-mail to the station that night asking what kind of operation they were running where a press conference--which was spliced and reran multiple times on NFL Network and ESPN the following week--took priority over a homicide.  I am a Colts fan, but I'd rather them show the real news.  Long story short, I'm highly disappointed that journalism is more about ratings than news these days.

I live in a area where the tv stations cover a very large area. There were two counties in the area that were under Tornado WARNINGS. The rest of the area was under Tornado WATCHES.  People actually complained that the CBS station broke into Survivor for coverage of the Tornado Warning.

This is nothing. There were multiple fields on fire to my north a while back.  The news broke in, and people went to the station's Facebook page to write angry rants about why they should never, ever interrupt soaps.  Pathetic, if you ask me.  It truly shows where peoples' priorities rest.

Tyler

[pete1974]

Tornado Warnings and things like 9/11  are definitely a different matter.

[Ccook]

We turn back the clock to January 28, 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven of its passengers. At noon, all three major networks began non-stop coverage of the tragedy, and their switchboards lit up like Christmas trees with angry housewives kvetching that they were missing their soap operas. Seven real people died in a tragedy and all America's housewives cared about were the pecadillos of fictional cheating pretty boys and trashy high-maintenance women.

[Franc]

Seven real people died in a tragedy and all America's housewives cared about were the pecadillos of fictional cheating pretty boys and trashy high-maintenance women.

Well put, my friend! That sentence made my day!

[CBSpromoman]

Because 99.99% of the time, the news story does not directly affect the viewer.  Even some of the bigger news stories out there don`t directly affect 99.99% of us.  How many of us were DIRECTLY affected by say, the Haiti earthquake for instance?

That's a shockingly narrow world view.  You were affected DIRECTLY by the Haiti earthquake because some of YOUR tax dollars went to provide aid in an area where nearly a quarter million fellow human beings died.

If that's not good enough for you, then the magnitude of the news story itself warranted cut-ins.  I agree that a statement from Tiger Woods does not, but some stories are so major that it should be obvious that they're more important than a few acts of a game show.

We turn back the clock to January 28, 1986, when the space shuttle Challenger exploded, killing all seven of its passengers. At noon, all three major networks began non-stop coverage of the tragedy, and their switchboards lit up like Christmas trees with angry housewives kvetching that they were missing their soap operas.

Actually, Dan Rather broke in with a special report during the second showcase showdown, and it may well have finished out the hour.  I'd like to think that had this site been up and running on that day, we'd have all had enough sense to realize that this story warranted coverage over 'Price.'

[thepriceis_J]

I think that there is outrage when you see those words "Special Report" but when you see what is being covered that stops and you listen.

Some situations warrant preemption. I'm on the fence about this one because 4 planes in 3 or 4 different places is suspicious. I think they handled it well though by keeping it short since their information was limited.

I think the problem some had was that this was a special episode. They pulled out the stops and some were unsure when the episode would air again. Remember, primetime programming and soaps take precedent over game shows. They'll reschedule those in heartbeat. Game shows not a bet.

[One example of an unwarranted preemption. In January, my local ABC affiliate preempted Jeopardy and Wheel. This was a problem for two reasons. 1. It was the celebrity episode of the month on J! and 2. They preempted to cover a local boat show. Really?]

[ayoung]

i think todays interruption could have waited the 15 minutes, where theres a nice half hour block of time devoted to news. 

[pete1974]

Precisely my opinion!!  I apologize for not being clearer in my earlier post.  I think most breaking news stories don`t warrant a "break-in" Things like 9\11, Tornado warnings, etc, are "Break-in worthy".  Things like (and I`m just using this as an example) an disaster in another country certainly warrant major coverage, but are not "Break-in worthy" IMHO.

[pete1974]

and soaps should ALWAYS be pre-empted

[PriceFanArmadillo]

Because 99.99% of the time, the news story does not directly affect the viewer.  Even some of the bigger news stories out there don`t directly affect 99.99% of us.  How many of us were DIRECTLY affected by say, the Haiti earthquake for instance?

A friend of mine was actually IN Haiti at the time.  He was on a missions trip completely unrelated to the earthquake.  Even though he was fine (and about as far on the island as you can get from the epicenter), I'd still say I was affected by it.

As for the original question...the only time a pre-emption of Price has ticked me off was when WCIA pre-empted with news that the University of Illinois had voted to retire Chief Illiniwek.  And that was because the announcement, not the fact that I was missing Price, was incredibly asinine and aggravating.

[brtsimpson142]

In my opinion, an example of an unwarranted pre-emption happened last year on this very same day.  In my state, WRAL interrupted the opening of the Halloween show just to tell viewers that a former governor was being indicted.  I didn't vote for the guy but I figure, that news wasn't breaking and could've waited until the noon news.  (Let's face it--a corrupt politician getting their just desserts is hardly shocking)