Producer fired for interrupting "CSI"

[Chappers]

that's not the point i was making. to air the "special news" in the last (most important) few minutes of a show is fine, if it is indeed worth reporting. Arafat's death however, could have waited another 180 seconds....i mean we all knew it was imminent didn't we? not exactly ground breaking or surprising news reporting.

Still more important than a TV programme. I do agree that 10 mins of a pre-recorded slot seems over board.

 

[phrancpharmD]

we don't know the producers track record for stupidity to really measure.

Exactly.

But it probably was a pretty bad track record to get sacked for it. Maybe he's the one in charge when the bearing of the breast occurred this past February and the National Guard Service records; you know, three strikes. . .

 

[evoluzione]

Still more important than a TV programme.

it's not important to me. Arafat's dead, like it wasn't going to happen? as someone said earlier, if it had been an Isreali Assassination then it would have been deemed"newsbreakworthy" perhaps. it's sensationalist ********. it was handled in completely the wrong manner, heck, half this country don't even know who the guy was!

 

[iShater]

half this country don't even know who the guy was!

Good one

 

[Chappers]

it's not important to me. Arafat's dead, like it wasn't going to happen? as someone said earlier, if it had been an Isreali Assassination then it would have been deemed"newsbreakworthy" perhaps. it's sensationalist ********. it was handled in completely the wrong manner, heck, half this country don't even know who the guy was!

Maybe thats the problem.

 

[Mantat]

it's not important to me. Arafat's dead, like it wasn't going to happen? as someone said earlier, if it had been an Isreali Assassination then it would have been deemed"newsbreakworthy" perhaps. it's sensationalist ********. it was handled in completely the wrong manner, heck, half this country don't even know who the guy was!

Ok to all of you that dont understand WHY this is such a big deal here is the explanation: Araffat was the only public voice of the palestinians. The only way for them to be heard on the internationnal scene was thru him. Now that he is dead, they think that they have lost their only chance of ending this war.

This is serious to a point that no american/occidental can understand fully. Just imagine that you are stuck in a foreign country in prison and the only person who knew about you (your lawer) die. You are now stuck in deep **** without anyone to call tha ambassy to help you out. Thats how the palestinians feel right now and why they are so emotional about his death.

I just hope that his death will bring peace and a sens of concession from BOTH side. If Israel allowed his corpse to be burried in Jerusalem it would probably have instantly healed much of the wounds but they didnt and no one knows how this is going to end...

BUT I should also say that I can totaly relate to the people who are frustrated about their show being interrupted! I think the best solution would have been to show some running text down the screen to say that a special repport would air after the show.

 

[evoluzione]

Ok to all of you that dont understand WHY this is such a big deal here is the explanation: Araffat was the only public voice of the palestinians. The only way for them to be heard on the internationnal scene was thru him. Now that he is dead, they think that they have lost their only chance of ending this war.

This is serious to a point that no american/occidental can understand fully. Just imagine that you are stuck in a foreign country in prison and the only person who knew about you (your lawer) die. You are now stuck in deep **** without anyone to call tha ambassy to help you out. Thats how the palestinians feel right now and why they are so emotional about his death.

I just hope that his death will bring peace and a sens of concession from BOTH side. If Israel allowed his corpse to be burried in Jerusalem it would probably have instantly healed much of the wounds but they didnt and no one knows how this is going to end...

BUT I should also say that I can totaly relate to the people who are frustrated about their show being interrupted! I think the best solution would have been to show some running text down the screen to say that a special repport would air after the show.

trust me, i know all about the politics involved etc, but it really (imo) was not justified to do whay they did, everyone who is interested in the (then) current situation knows he's knocking on death's door, it's not as if it was a surprise to anyone. yes it's a sucky situation (and i for one dislike isreal, and probably take sides with palestine if i were to be the least bit interested in doing so) but come on, is tv all about bad news reporting?

 

[imac_japan]

Oh Come On !!!!!

Come on !!!
This is stupid - a world leader died and you complain because you couldn't see CSI:NY !! The show is crap......Typical Americans !!
If an American died, you would be in tears but since he wasn't an American - you don't care.

Shame on you all

 

[kylos]

He was a known terrorist who has ordered strikes against schools that killed many children. His Fatah organization is responsible attacking and killing many innocent civilians. If you want to wage a war for freedom, make guerilla style attacks on the nations military and government institutions. Terrorism is for cowards and the worst individuals in society. Arafat was one of these.

imac_japan, you may hate america, and that's your right, and you may feel that americans in general don't pay that much attention to world affairs, and you're partially right (our media feeds us this scott peterson tripe nonstop), but I don't have to sit here and accept it. As has been pointed out, this news had been breaking for about a week, a crawl would have been sufficient, and to many people the show they were watching was more important than the inevitable. What would be noteworthy is the choices the Palestinian leadership makes following his death. Will they choose to continue with terrorism, or will they fight the Israeli government, or will they strive for peace?

While you may dislike america, you only cause hatred in return with your vicious and spiteful words. I don't get upset with people who respectfully air their differing opinions, but if you make vicious attacks, I'm going to respond.

 

[evoluzione]

Come on !!!
This is stupid - a world leader died and you complain because you couldn't see CSI:NY !! The show is crap......Typical Americans !!
If an American died, you would be in tears but since he wasn't an American - you don't care.

Shame on you all

yes, the show is not that great, but as i stated earlier, i watch it as i like to see the city on tv, i recently moved out of there. and for your information, i'm english, not american. i couldn't care less if it was an american instead of a "world leader" (with the exception of the current american leader, then i'd be very interested )

shame on you, i'm sure you must've stopped whatever it is you were doing when the news broke and sat glued to whichever form of media it is that reported it in your world.

 

[kettle]

Come on !!!
This is stupid - a world leader died and you complain because you couldn't see CSI:NY !! The show is crap......Typical Americans !!
If an American died, you would be in tears but since he wasn't an American - you don't care.

Shame on you all

"Typical Americans" and "Shame on you all" I'm not sure where you draw the line on racism, but that is at least a stereotype.

I'm sure I would know it pretty quick if I dared to say "typical Palestinian" or "typical Israeli".

Come to mention it "typical Japanese person"

A happy ending is impossible in this situation, that's why they resort to killing each other.

If one side gets what they want the other side will not.

It's not going to change, and it's not going to change in the last 10 minutes of CSI.

Go and watch a 24 News station if you want up to the second coverage.

 

[imac_japan]

"Typical Americans" and "Shame on you all" I'm not sure where you draw the line on racism, but that is at least a stereotype.

Come to mention it "typical Japanese person"

Well for starters, I'm not Japanese and Im not a racist. I was just pointing out that some people who posted mails on this thread are very heartless. One posters said that "they could've posted a crawl because I knew about his illness for weeks" - well that is totally heartless and Im glad that I don't live anywhere near that poster.

Another poster said that he was a terrorist...well that may be true to some but many other world leaders are terrorists in their own way eg: George Bush (the environment, Iraq, Afgan, America). I think that Americans have lost touch with real world.

"Oh, CSI - I love you"

 

[Jimong5]

Come on !!!
This is stupid - a world leader died and you complain because you couldn't see CSI:NY !! The show is crap......Typical Americans !!
If an American died, you would be in tears but since he wasn't an American - you don't care.

Shame on you all

I was actually thinking of something similar. Arafat died, someone preempted it, he get fired.

but, Princess Diana (admittedly her death was more sudden, but still) preempted a lot of shows, and the whole place went gaga.

 

[Diatribe]

heck, half this country don't even know who the guy was!

So that deems it not worthy news? I think that is even one more reason to show it.



I am pretty appalled by some of the comments here. Wanting to see CSI over the death of a world leader by justifying his death as imminent is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.
This only constitutes to the view a lot of people have of America and it's inhabitants.
I am by no means trying to generalize here, but the comments here were at the very least insensitive.

 

[Abstract]

Whether it was imminent or not is not the issue. The issue is that one of the most important people in the world died, and the news was reported. This affects things greatly, and I really don't feel sorry for how the world thinks of America if the unfortunate 5 minutes of CSI they missed caused such an uproar. It seems that the CBS or US tv viewers are just a bit slow. If it doesn't directly affect their lives, it's not worth interrupting a TV show that comes on once a week? People don't seem to realize that this DOES affect their life, as it involves the head figure of the Palestinians.


To me, another attack on the US is inevitable, so if it interrupts a basketball or hockey game, or anything else I'm watching, I'm just going to turn off my television, walk over to the phone, phone up a television station, and complain about the interruption simply because I don't care if America is attacked. Really, I don't. "Excuse me, but I was watching basketball."

 

[absolut_mac]

Terrorist

Another poster said that he was a terrorist...well that may be true to some but many other world leaders are terrorists in their own way eg: George Bush

Terrorist - as defined in the English Oxford dictionary.

Any one who attempts to further his views through a system of coercive intimidation

Slaughtering unarmed Olympic athletes, hijacking and blowing up airplanes, blowing up pizza parlors and discos and pregnant women and school children definitely fits the above definition - regardless of whether you agree with his agenda/goals or not.

Also the fact that regardless of which country he happened to be in he tried - through extreme violence, murder and intimidation - to destabilize and overthrow the government eg Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, Israel etc.

IMHO mourning the loss of Arafat is akin to mourning the loss of Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot

 

[imac_japan]

Terrorist - as defined in the English Oxford dictionary.

Any one who attempts to further his views through a system of coercive intimidation

So as I said George Bush is a terrorist !! Countless times he has stated That if countries didn't join his coalition (in Iraq) - they're against America !! He has attempted to further his views by coercive intimidation. eg: Turkey - George offered Turkey large sums of money to join the coalition of the willing but they said NO !!

Thanks for the Quote !! It supported my views

 

[Mr_Ed]

Reading over the posts here I get the impression some have extrapolated the suggestion that "CBS could have waited a few more minutes to tell me about an event I have known is imminent for weeks now" into "I don't give a **** about the death of a public figure half a world away", and followed up with some all too common "jabs" at Americans. If you live in a place where TV programming is interrupted for "news" that are not unexpected, so be it, but generally speaking, the U.S. is not such a place. Hate us or love us for it, but that is the way it is here, so naturally, a lot of viewers were put off by CBS's handling of this particular "news" story. From what I understand, other major TV networks (ABC, NBC) ran "crawlers" with the story (as CBS says it had instructed its staff to do) but did not interrupt their regular programming either.

If the reaction of many Americans to the interruption of a TV program in this case seems odd, or even "wrong" to you, you have a couple of choices. You could try to understand and ask "why" that might be, or you can immediately jump to conclusions and look at the situation as "fuel" for whatever anti-American feelings may be out there, and post comments accordingly. I'll leave it up to you to decide which approach is more constructive.

You might also consider that how "news worthy" an event is comes down to a purely subjective determination. Like it or not, the passing of a public figure, when said passing was imminent, is not considered "news worthy" to a lot of people. Also, an assessment of what stature a public figure holds is highly subjective. Should the passing of (for example) the president of Finland be as important and news worthy to a Canadian or a Japanese citizen as it is to a Finnish citizen? No, and rightly so. If you live in a place where there are no news events from your neighborhood, your city or town, your county, your state, and your country that affect you directly, then I suppose news from other countries may as well be the headlines all the time. I personally don't know of any place where this is true, so "news" are prioritized everywhere you go. To try to portray this as yet another example of "bad behavior" on the part of "those ugly Americans" is just plain silly.

 

[Diatribe]

From what I understand, other major TV networks (ABC, NBC) ran "crawlers" with the story (as CBS says it had instructed its staff to do) but did not interrupt their regular programming either.

This is how it should have been done. I agree completely. But it was not, so be it. Life goes on... or so it should for those people(instead of making a lengthy post about it).

If the reaction of many Americans to the interruption of a TV program in this case seems odd, or even "wrong" to you, you have a couple of choices. You could try to understand and ask "why" that might be, or you can immediately jump to conclusions and look at the situation as "fuel" for whatever anti-American feelings may be out there, and post comments accordingly. I'll leave it up to you to decide which approach is more constructive.

I love it when people start being cynical. Very useful approach.

You might also consider that how "news worthy" an event is comes down to a purely subjective determination. Like it or not, the passing of a public figure, when said passing was imminent, is not considered "news worthy" to a lot of people. Also, an assessment of what stature a public figure holds is highly subjective. Should the passing of (for example) the president of Finland be as important and news worthy to a Canadian or a Japanese citizen as it is to a Finnish citizen? No, and rightly so. If you live in a place where there are no news events from your neighborhood, your city or town, your county, your state, and your country that affect you directly, then I suppose news from other countries may as well be the headlines all the time. I personally don't know of any place where this is true, so "news" are prioritized everywhere you go. To try to portray this as yet another example of "bad behavior" on the part of "those ugly Americans" is just plain silly.

To defend ignorance is even worse than being ignorant yourself. You might want to reconsider your point on that.
I might agree that the death of a leader of some island is not something you'd need to do an entire show on but the leader of a territory that has been fought for for centuries, a war that has caused many U.S. presidents to get involved and that is seen to be the precursor for terrorism worldwide, which does affect the U.S. I would think, is something different.

And although I think it is sad that many Americans don't want to know about things that don't affect them personally I won't change it but being ignorant about things that DO affect them, that I do not understand.

And don't give me that "They could've waited 10 minutes" crap. Yeah, they could have and should have done a crawler but they did not. People get over it.

 

[Mr_Ed]

To defend ignorance is even worse than being ignorant yourself. You might want to reconsider your point on that.
I might agree that the death of a leader of some island is not something you'd need to do an entire show on but the leader of a territory that has been fought for for centuries, a war that has caused many U.S. presidents to get involved and that is seen to be the precursor for terrorism worldwide, which does affect the U.S. I would think, is something different.

And although I think it is sad that many Americans don't want to know about things that don't affect them personally I won't change it but being ignorant about things that DO affect them, that I do not understand.

We clearly disagree on the simple idea that how "news worthy" en event is (especially when it was well known to be imminent), and just how "important" a figure is comes down to a subjective determination, and just because someone else does not see this particular event or public figure the same way you do, does not make them wrong. In this case, any issues that might arise from Arafat's absence became issues the minute he became incapacitated , and have been covered continuously by the media ever since that time. That being the case, along with the fact that he was not expected to recover make his actual passing something less than an 'earth shattering event' for a lot of people. Is this view really so hard to acknowledge that anyone who holds it must be accused of being "ignorant" or "unconcerned" about the world?

Many [fill in any nationality] do not want to know about things that don't affect them personally. Was there a point here, or were you just "extrapolating" and generalizing as I indicated in the first paragraph of my post?

And don't give me that "They could've waited 10 minutes" crap. Yeah, they could have and should have done a crawler but they did not. People get over it.

The people who might have been put off by the network's handling of this event are over it, which is more than I can say for those who would try to use this event to generalize and promote negative stereotypes.

 

[Diatribe]

We clearly disagree on the simple idea that how "news worthy" en event is (especially when it was well known to be imminent), and just how "important" a figure is comes down to a subjective determination, and just because someone else does not see this particular event or public figure the same way you do, does not make them wrong. In this case, any issues that might arise from Arafat's absence became issues the minute he became incapacitated , and have been covered continuously by the media ever since that time. That being the case, along with the fact that he was not expected to recover make his actual passing something less than an 'earth shattering event' for a lot of people. Is this view really so hard to acknowledge that anyone who holds it must be accused of being "ignorant" or "unconcerned" about the world?

Yeah, to me this seems a bit odd. But then again, I don't understand people that do not vote because the election of one person is imminent either.

Many [fill in any nationality] do not want to know about things that don't affect them personally. Was there a point here, or were you just "extrapolating" and generalizing as I indicated in the first paragraph of my post?

Of course, my only intent was to generalize and make Americans look bad, didn't that come across my post clearly enough?
To clear it up: I do think a lot of nations have that same issue but in America it is more obvious than in any other country I have lived in.
So this is personal opinion and experience. If you think this is generalizing then how would you defend your (fill in nationality) when you have never lived in other countries or have you?
Anyhow, it is hard to argue one's opinion or experience so we should just leave it at that.

The people who might have been put off by the network's handling of this event are over it, which is more than I can say for those who would try to use this event to generalize and promote negative stereotypes.

Just because I was tempted by these posts to write something doesn't necessarily mean I have a personal issue with those people. I am also not trying to promote negative stereotypes here. I am expressing my opinion and there are always exceptions that make the rule a rule. I just found the percentage of ignorant people (concerning world events) higher in America than any place else. This is not to say that in Germany for example do not live some very ignorant people.
If you cannot deal with another person's opinion without thinking it is a generalization we should stop discussing.
And don't tell me I cannot deal with another's opinion because I am writing this, because I can deal with that very well as I said I won't change it and accept it but this is not an opinion it's ignorance and if you want to defend it as an opinion we won't resolve this argument either because you and I seem to have totally different views on this topic.
So to make this short, albeit a bit cynical it was still a nice discussion, thanks alot.

 

[kylos]

So as I said George Bush is a terrorist !! Countless times he has stated That if countries didn't join his coalition (in Iraq) - they're against America !! He has attempted to further his views by coercive intimidation. eg: Turkey - George offered Turkey large sums of money to join the coalition of the willing but they said NO !!

Thanks for the Quote !! It supported my views

That you can compare GWB to terrorists is beyond me. That is a poor definition of what terrorism is. First, Turkey had the right (and exercised it) to reject his offer. They were not threatened, their children, their athletes, their weakest member of society were not killed (nor any other of their citizens for that matter), their wives were not raped, they weren't fed feet first into plastic choppers, etc, etc. In Iraq, we do not target civilians, in Afghanistan we do not target civilians, we try diplomacy wherever possible (Libya). Whatever you feel about GWB, to call him a terrorist only serves to discredit yourself.

 

[Mr_Ed]

Yeah, to me this seems a bit odd. But then again, I don't understand people that do not vote because the election of one person is imminent either.

???? What this comment intended for this thread?

Just because I was tempted by these posts to write something doesn't necessarily mean I have a personal issue with those people. I am also not trying to promote negative stereotypes here. I am expressing my opinion and there are always exceptions that make the rule a rule. I just found the percentage of ignorant people (concerning world events) higher in America than any place else. This is not to say that in Germany for example do not live some very ignorant people.

Fair enough. For the record, my original post did not quote anyone because I saw posts from several individuals who made the leap from 'I don't think it's big news' to 'I don't care about anything that does not directly affect me' and I did not single anyone out.

And don't tell me I cannot deal with another's opinion because I am writing this, because I can deal with that very well as I said I won't change it and accept it but this is not an opinion it's ignorance and if you want to defend it as an opinion we won't resolve this argument either because you and I seem to have totally different views on this topic.

I'm having a little trouble with the paragraph long sentence virtually zero punctuation but I think I understand what you are saying. You just called me 'ignorant' again because my opinion differs from yours. Why shouldn't I tell you that you cannot deal with another's opinion? And what about your original post?

I am pretty appalled by some of the comments here. Wanting to see CSI over the death of a world leader by justifying his death as imminent is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

The importance of Arafat's death is a matter of opinion, but anyone who does not share yours is apparently 'ignorant.' At no point do you enlighten us as to how a brief report on TV about the fact that he finally did die, as he was expected to do, would have diminished that "ignorance" that you claim is so rampant, or had any other positive effect for that matter. I tried to provide some insight into why some here might not think of Arafat's death as big news and I explained that an event's 'newsworthiness' and the 'stature' of a public figure are clearly subjective (there's that opinion thing again) determinations. Your response to that?

To defend ignorance is even worse than being ignorant yourself.

All you could do in practically every post was resort to name calling. You can try to tell yourself you are tolerant and respectful of other people's opinions, but your own posts contradict that notion.

So to make this short, albeit a bit cynical it was still a nice discussion, thanks alot.

Yes, it was a nice discussion. Thank you as well.

 

[Diatribe]

???? What this comment intended for this thread?

This remark was to answer your question in the paragraph you quoted.
If there is any need to further explain that statement let me know.

Fair enough. For the record, my original post did not quote anyone because I saw posts from several individuals who made the leap from 'I don't think it's big news' to 'I don't care about anything that does not directly affect me' and I did not single anyone out.

Fair enough.

I'm having a little trouble with the paragraph long sentence virtually zero punctuation but I think I understand what you are saying. You just called me 'ignorant' again because my opinion differs from yours. Why shouldn't I tell you that you cannot deal with another's opinion? And what about your original post?

I'm having no problem with this paragraph lacking words
Seriously, it wasn't that hard to read and we're on an online message board here the day I start writing with perfect punctuation is the day I stop writing on these.

The importance of Arafat's death is a matter of opinion, but anyone who does not share yours is apparently 'ignorant.' At no point do you enlighten us as to how a brief report on TV about the fact that he finally did die, as he was expected to do, would have diminished that "ignorance" that you claim is so rampant, or had any other positive effect for that matter. I tried to provide some insight into why some here might not think of Arafat's death as big news and I explained that an event's 'newsworthiness' and the 'stature' of a public figure are clearly subjective (there's that opinion thing again) determinations. Your response to that?

If you'd have read my post more closely you'd have noticed that I said that this was my opinion.
The thing I called ignorant is arguing over 10 minutes of a TV series over the showing of the death of a world leader, him being a terrorist or not. If you have a different take on that then that is your right and I'm ok with that but it is my right too to think and say that I consider this ignorant.
I also said before that a crawler would have been ok but it is the relation between ten minutes of meaningless TV and the death of leader imminent to the peace process in the middle east that bothered me.
I hope you could understand this better.

All you could do in practically every post was resort to name calling. You can try to tell yourself you are tolerant and respectful of other people's opinions, but your own posts contradict that notion.

If you call my expression of opinion name-calling then so be it, I do not feel like arguing about that.

Yes, it was a nice discussion. Thank you as well.

This seems to be going on... Now if we could just get the cynism out of there and discuss this on a fact-based level.