i was at the bank this afternoon. while i was sitting in the waiting area, waiting for my friend to finish her business there, i saw something on msnbc that appalled me.
they were in the middle of a piece about the mortgage crisis. they had some kind of housing market expert on, and the anchor was talking to him. this made perfect sense...the mortgage crisis is real news that affects a lot of people, and a story that is worth covering in great detail.
in the middle of the interview, the anchor rudely cut the guest off. she said it was nice to have him there, but there was some breaking news that they had to cover. i was expecting something major. i was expecting the death or serious injury of a politician, a terrorist attack somewhere in the world, or something else of that scale...something that warranted cutting short a guest spot about the mortgage crisis.
what was the special report? a two second piece about how the jury in the john ritter medical malpractice case had just rendered its verdict, holding the doctors not liable. that's a story that some people were following, i'm sure, but was it really worth cutting off another story to break that one? i honestly don't think so; no one would have been harmed if msnbc had delayed breaking that story for a few more minutes, while finishing the talk about the mortgage crisis.
you'd think they'd go back and finish the segment after quickly breaking the john ritter story...but you'd be wrong. the guest was never to be seen again. they followed the lawsuit story with a story about the upcoming youtube awards, and spent the next five minutes fawning over some baby video that had been nominated in the "adorable" category.
for a station that purports to be a news station, this is not what i call responsible journalism.