I do not understand this overindulgence with the details. The point is Anna Nicole Smith was given more coverage than it was worth by FAR. That is why the amount of News coverage is not parallel with notability. They may be parallel but that is not the rule.
I would appreciate if you focused on the "spirit" of the rationale rather than every minor detail. Examples I use are merely for illustration and not intended to be encyclopedic. :P
- White Cat
On 7/2/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 7/1/07, White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com wrote:
The Daily Show is as reliable as fake news gets.
The best I could find is http://www.niagara-news.com/v37issues/v37i12/oped.shtml?newsstories
"When I turn on the Cable News Network (CNN), I hope that I will see something about what happened in Congress that day, but instead, I see over two hours of commercial free coverage of the Anna Nicole drama. The last time they went that long without a commercial break was 9/11. According to CNN, Anna Nicole's death is right up there with the deaths of 3,000 American citizens."
Which would imply that the length without a commercial break was longer for 9/11 coverage. That fits in with my recollection. Of course, it would also imply that the length without commercial break was less for, say, Katrina coverage.
Here's another link:
"September 11, 2001 CBS News coverage of the terrorist attacks on New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania totals a record 93 hours and 8 minutes. The non-stop, commercial-free coverage begins at 8:55 AM, ET, on Tuesday, September 11, and concludes at 6:00 AM, ET on Saturday, September 15. Dan Rather anchors 53 hours and 35 minutes of that coverage."
93 hours and 8 minutes without a commercial break. I highly doubt any major television stations did that for Anna Nicole Smith. Certainly none of the networks did. I think you got your facts confused.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l