Well, I’m certainly glad that I don’t have reason to use that entry title too often, but last night was an exception. The first disappointment was that the segment before the Planet in Peril Roundtable only covered a summary of the OJ preliminary hearing. Although, trying to be positive about it, it was relatively short and there were a couple of instances of welcomed “snark”:
Anderson commenting after AP reporter Linda Deutsch discussed Thomas Riccio’s testimony:
COOPER: Yes, Riccio is certainly a charmer.
And a little more snark as Jeff Toobin discusses Bruce Fromong’s testimony:
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: You know, I watched (Bruce) Fromong's testimony. And I thought, boy, Simpson showed absolutely horrible judgment in getting involved in this whole ridiculous situation.
COOPER: Wow. Bad judgment, O.J. Simpson?
TOOBIN: I know. It's a bold conclusion on my part, I know.
Other than that, and the opinion from Jeff that there would probably be enough evidence presented for the judge to move for a trial, I didn’t think there was anything else notable reported.
And disappointment # 2 (reluctant as I am to say this) was the Roundtable itself. This discussion was suppose to be held at the conclusion of the second night of the Planet in Peril documentary, but was postponed due to the California Wildfires. My recollection is that it was suppose to be live, and I think that it lost some of the impact by being pre-taped. In addition, there were very few v-mail questions used, and of those that were, I thought they weren’t very, well, compelling. I didn’t particularly care for all the clips once again being shown – I would have rather had more time spent with the “experts” interacting with one another and presenting their evidence about why they do (or don’t) believe that climate change (for example) is occurring at the rate that many other scientists have concluded that it is. Or why we should be concerned about the “non-natural” chemicals being absorbed by our bodies – even though studies do not show harmful effects at current exposure levels. Sanjay made a good point on this topic when he said: “I think it's one of those things that's difficult in medicine, which is the absence of evidence doesn't mean there's no effect. That's an important point. Just because science hasn't caught up yet doesn't mean that we won't find that out.” The specific discussion was about lead and the fact that the ‘initial acceptable level’ of exposure has dramatically decreased over the past 40 years, and we now wish we knew then what we know now!! Isn’t that always the case??
I was quite surprised, though, by the news that Senator James Inhofe seems to believe that Anderson Cooper personally attacked him by calling him names and issuing threats. WHAT??? What has this guy been smoking, because I want to get some too!! (J/K)!! "Crooks and Liars" has labeled him a “serial Global Warming denier” – here’s what he claims:
InHofe: “I’ve been personally attacked by Anderson Cooper. It’s taking place right now, even this week, calling me every kind of name — all kinds of threats. This is what you, you people say ‘why don’t more members of the House and Senate tell the truth about climate change?’ This is the reason. This is what we’re subjected to. I have got a big family at home that has to watch all this.”
Check out this link from Crooks and Liars, referencing these delusional remarks – and also available is the video clip. And yes, if you LIVE in the state of Oklahoma, please vote out this guy next year - he's a danger to ALL of us!!!
So all in all – probably not THE most compelling use of 50 minutes, as there were a lot more options for this presentation that could have been used – for example, maybe even a “town-hall” type of meeting where selected viewers could have questioned the experts “live”, but there was probably the feeling that they wanted to wrap-up PIP, using the 'roundtable', as close to what they originally planned as possible, and last night was the result.
The second hour last night was a repeat of the “Anvil of God” special with Tom Foreman – I think I’ll write about that over the weekend!
Thanks for visiting – updates posted as needed – have a terrific day!!
6 comments:
Newsblooz: I had my fill of OJ by the time "360" came on so I was glad that Anderson's coverage was mercifully brief and I enjoyed the "snarkiness."
I think the impact would have been greater if the Roundtable had followed the showing of "Planet in Peril" as scheduled, but to be fair, once the wildfire story took hold they may not of had much choice. I am sure that "the powers that be" at CNN forced them to cover it because Anderson is considered the "Breaking News" person, even though they had more than enough reporters out there already.
If they had done the Roundtable when they were supposed to they probably would not have used so many clips. My guess is that they used them not only because they did not get many v-mails, but to refresh viewers' minds about the subjects that were covered. They should have eliminated the v-mails altogether because they were pretty lame to say the least. The "You Tube" idea worked beautifully during the debate, but failed miserably here. They should have just used the most frequently asked questions from the feedback. The free time would have been better spent with the "experts."
I think Sanjay's and Jeff's comments about the issues were excellent. I almost applauded when Sanjay said, "the absence of evidence does not mean there isn't an effect."
I thought Sanjay's comment that his involvement "took it squarely out of the realm of theoretical and placed it into the realm of it's happening now" was an important point. Jeff also had a final wish that I hope is shared by all of us; "what I hope this project will ultimately do, is promote good conservation."
When I heard what Senator Inhofe said about Anderson I thought I had missed something! Clearly this man needs to step down and allow a sane person to take his place. I feel sorry for his family because they have to put up with his delusions.
I still think "Planet in Peril" was a valiant effort and a great success and I hope they will continue to bring us reports on the types of issues they touched on here.
HI there,
I don't want to sound too critical here,but I did not enjoy the PIP discussion at all,and I feel,if it could not have been live,maybe it should not have been thrown together,as it seemed to be,and not done at all.
I know the breaking news and everyone's schedules probably prevented that,but to me,it was just something that was put together in a hurry,and we did not learn anything new.
I was looking forward to this when it was first mentioned,but what happened to the vmail idea,and why not just use email or feedback?
It might have made it a bit more interesting.
And why was poor Sanjay there-he hardly spoke!
"I have got a big family at home that has to watch all this.”
Hmm.. think he should be more concerned that his big family has to watch him make these delusional remarks!!
@Stardust - I also think that either the V-mails should have been scrapped in lieu of questions sent in via e-mail, but they had "promoted" the v-mail option so heavily, I think they may have thought that they HAD to have at least some. And yes, the whole idea would have had more 'impact' if it could have been done at least sometime during the week that PIP was shown; maybe not on Wednesday night, right after Part 2 of PIP, but perhaps on Thursday or Friday. I think it all lost some 'momentum' by waiting!
@Anonymous - you know, I do agree with the bascis of what you said - I commented at the Yahoo group already about how much I think was lost by not having a "live" discussion. And you're right - Sanjay really didn't interact too much. I could say that maybe he's still in some pain because of his hand injury, but that would be guessing. But what he DID say was very useful and relevant!
@northwestern - LOL!!! What an idiot he is! When he threw in the line about his 'family', I immediately thought about how embarassed they must be!!
Post a Comment