To: faqsnlojiks who wrote (1136 ) 4/27/1999 11:44:00 AM From: Joana Tides Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7442
Howdy pals, the do-si-dos are in a circle & having fun today being a barndance fiddler. Market's flat, volumes up; hopeful the Tuesday after the 3rd Friday is a good day to do this. Got "5 dancers" - aols, gnets, amzns, cmgis, and added cmcsks to the list of the trading shares. Hope it works out well, wish me luck. My nervous system couldn't stand it daily. AH, I was a reporter but not for long (for a small newspaper but whatever, they're all the same) and newsfolk run what they write through an editor. Usually what's said is scrutinized first (or reprimanded later) by a higher-up if they happen to come up with something original. (Just one difference tween a Network Show and an Internet Forum!) The shows are a script, timed close to the ad breaks, looky their eyes reading the cards especially when they flub a line. 1/2 hour on film so 8 minutes gets on the air. If a live show were ad-lib, there'd be many blank dead air spaces like umms, and coughs, and ya knows, and give me a minute to think about thats. The Murphy Brown show gets it half right, but wrong in portraying the newscaster as the one who does it all. What the Murphy Show gets right is that they do have fights over the spin on the footage, and no matter who loses the battle they join forces to stand up for the network to the public, that part is true. There aren't so many hours in the day for one person to do it all, no one moves and thinks that fast anyway. So an anchor or reporter will stand behind what was broadcast by the one who writes their paycheck rather than take sides with a section of the audience; like an author who'll promote a movie from their book when it's completely different from the original. Who's to know whether the RH interview was a script or a spin or a mistake or the newscasters doing. Probably a combo but whatever, it's their responsibility to answer to that it wasn't right or defend it. Even though it's hard not to leave room for things to be turned in another direction by others. Who knows What really happened, and that stuff happens everyday. I don't watch it, don't have cable, I like staying in a good mood more than I enjoy the aggrivation. Missing reasons for some market moves and also missing being led in the wrong direction by them, so it's an even/steven. I quit the newsreporting biz early At That Classic Waterloo - when Editor rearranged my factual unopinionated article about a controversial board of ed meeting to give it a nasty rumormongering spin to get more stories out of it. So there it was in b & w with my name on it. Some folks I knew from around town didn't like it and I didn't like a lie crafted from my words put in a different order either. The editor told me if it bothered me then I wasn't cut out to be a reporter & I agreed with him so That Was That for Lois Lane. When it comes to the media "Believing Nothing"; all not coming from The Source is more suspicious than The Source Itself - all opinions, hard data in print, and especially on the internet. So much is incorrect, whether by error or design; it's just plain spun and then spun some more by all sides to their own interest or whatever reason. From networks wanting more market share to sell more ads all the way down to individual investors hoping to move the market or talk some lucky talk for themselves...Spun. Controversy sells papers/gets listeners/makes money/gets attention. Call me a cynic, yep I resemble that remark. But who could achieve decent success in stocks without being a cynic anyway? 909, Joan