Ms
Paula Francis, Anchor/Newscaster with Channel 8, Eyewitness News
in Las Vegas, Nevada Expresses her thoughts on positive news
versus negative news.
On
March 18, 2001, I, Aloysius Dalli wrote the following letter to
Ms. Paula Francis and Mr. Gary Waddell, who both work as a team
and are Anchors/Newscasters with Channel 8, Eyewitness News in Las
Vegas Nevada. (Fine People and a fine TV Station)
(Please read Ms. Francis' response to me, following my letter)
Re: News in general
To the Attention of Ms. Paula Francis and Mr. Gary Waddell
Dear Ms. Francis and Mr. Waddell,
Whatever you do please do not be offended by what I am about to
say. I happen to like you both, not because of the job that you
do, but because you come across like decent human beings. At age
63, I feel that I am a good judge of character.
Do not get me wrong, you do your jobs very well, it is the
substance of the News that I object to. (Mind you, I feel that
Channel 8 is one of the better TV Stations)
Let me explain, I just watched you both on TV. I watched the 11PM
News, and today's date is 3/19/2001.
To me News should be News; News should be truthful, exciting and
interesting. I believe that News occurs in different forms, it
could be Good News and it could be Bad News.
As I said, I just watched you on TV and I was purposely listening
to see if either of you would report a bit of good News for a
change? Unfortunately other than the Rock & Roll Hall of
Fame Nominations and the Weather forecast, it seemed to me that
the rest of the News was predictably Bad News. I did not object
seeing the Rail derailment, after all although it was bad News it
dealt with an unfortunate Accident.
What I consider bad news is seeing and hearing about corruption
and killing. It seems to me that the major part of the News
is occupied by such bad News. Why is it that by contrast, no
good News is shown on TV? Do you not think that people would
love to hear some good News as well?
As I stated I like you both, therefore I will not insult your
intelligence by suggesting what is considered good News.
To show you how I feel about this subject, two days ago I decided
to create my own On line Newspaper and I named it "Good
News". True the name is not inventive, however, it fits. You
see my intent is to publish only Good News.
How am I going to accomplish this? I am a Businessman here in Las
Vegas and two years ago I started a unique International
Investment Finders Association and today it numbers over 5.000
Members Worldwide. I have invited my Finders to cooperate by
submitting to me any good News that they hear. My intent is to do
the opposite of what the General Media does. (Ouch!)
I know that this may sound crazy, after all as I have already
stated, News is News and it occurs in many ways, meaning that News
cannot always be good News either? Well that is just it, since
most TV Stations, Newspapers and Radios deal mostly with bad News,
I decided to deal with only good News.
Please do not judge me by the way I express myself, for English is
my second language. I am not apologizing, I am simply stating to
please not judge how I express myself; I would like you to judge
what I have stated instead.
Let me ask you this, do you think that it is healthy for our
Children to see and hear all that is said in the News on TV? I
know that by11 PM the Children are in Bed, however, the News
is on most of the time.
I do not know your personal lives, so I do not know if you have
Children of your own, but be honest, if you did have young
Children, would you want them to see and hear the News on TV? At
any hour?
Just in case I have angered you by my comments, to a point whereby
you feel the need to respond to me by telling me off... before you
do, I ask that you do like I did, watch the News for half an hour,
any Station (not channel 8) and see for yourselves if you see or
hear any good News? If I am wrong and the News that you listened
to contained even a little Good News, than by all means I would
deserve being told off by either of you.
I am hoping that my comments did not hurt your feelings since as I
already stated, I really do like you both.
If this simple letter causes you to think about what I stated
herein, and if you decide that perhaps I am partially right, you
might want to use your influence to change things a bit? I believe
a little good News would do much good...
I would be willing to bet that neither one of you like people that
are negative? I bet that if you could, you would stay away from
such people, true? Don't you find negative people boring? Well
that is how I feel about the News in general, because it is so
darn negative.
Thank you for reading this Email.
Sincerely,
A. Dalli
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I received this Letter via Email, on March 19, 2001
Dear
Mr. Dalli,
I
do agree with you, that "good" news about interesting
elements and aspects of life is often neglected in the News
Business. We have a tendency to concentrate on "bad"
news, because our journalistic traditions grew out of a recounting
of events that were often catastrophes.
I
believe the News Business needs to evolve beyond those
catastrophes, if we hope to attract new viewers. Letters like
yours can surely help speed us on our way.
A
news program offers a "slice" of life, but not a
representative one, for many reasons. People wouldn't be
interested in the utterly ordinary, yet they perhaps are getting
burned out on the catastrophic elements to which we gravitate.
Be assured: we DO listen to the input we get, and we DO try to
include items that are uplifting. Unfortunately, the 11pm News is
often too abbreviated to include much beyond the cataclysmic
events, which we are used to calling "news". I for one,
would like to see more international news, and more
"practical" news, and we have made great strides in our
6pm newscast in that last regard.
Each newscast is dictated to a great deal, by the audience we
expect to reach at a given hour. Perhaps we strive too much to be
stimulating at 11pm, since our greatest competition is not the
other news shows or even other entertainment shows, it is the need
to keep people AWAKE long enough to watch such a late broadcast.
I
hope you sample all our newscasts, and find one better suited to
your intelligent search for intelligence!!!
Thank you for writing and thank you very much for your kind words
about Gary and me. Don't stop watching!
Sincerely,
Paula Francis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Friend,
I've never circulated this kind of email before. But I am so appalled by President Bush's plan to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to massive oil development that I
feel I must do whatever I can to help stop it.
To me, the Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything endangered about America's natural heritage: a million years of ecological serenity . . . vast expanses of untouched wilderness . . . an irreplaceable sanctuary for polar bears, white wolves and 130,000 caribou that return
here each year to give birth and rear their young. For 20,000 years -- literally hundreds of generations -- the native Gwich'in people have inhabited this sacred place, following the caribou herd and leaving the awe-inspiring landscape just as they found it. Our own presidents going back to Eisenhower have kept a bipartisan promise to safeguard this world-class natural treasure. But not THIS
president.
It is a sad day indeed when our president and congressional leaders would sacrifice America's largest
wildlife refuge for the sake of a possible six-month supply of national energy. A six-month supply! We could save that little oil by improving the fuel efficiency of cars and light trucks by a mere one mile per gallon.
Only one group of Americans will benefit from the destruction of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge: the oil giants. Everyone else loses. Arctic wildlife populations will decline, the Gwich'in people will see their land marred by pipelines and poisoned by oil spills, you and I will become even more dependent on oil, and the planet will suffer
catastrophic global warming from the burning of even more
fossil fuel.
Unless we get millions of Americans to lodge a protest right now, this nightmarish scenario may well come to pass in the next two months. The Republican energy bill, which would fulfill the president's promise to drill the Arctic Refuge, is moving through Congress today. House and Senate leaders
may also try to sneak through the Arctic drilling provision by attaching it to a "must-pass" appropriations bill. These
votes will be decided by the moderates in both parties. We must reach those moderates and hold them accountable.
Here's what you can do: go to
http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has set up this new website to make it extremely easy for you to send messages of protest to your senators and represenative. It will take you only a minute.
I've been on NRDC's board for 25 years, so I know how effective they are at waging and winning environmental campaigns. Last year, NRDC used web activism to help generate a million messages of protest to Mitsubishi and
stopped the company from destroying the last unspoiled birthing ground of the Pacific gray whale. We'll win this time too if each of us does our part for the
Arctic Refuge. Please visit http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic
right now. And forward my message to your family, friends and colleagues. Congress
cannot ignore millions of us.
If we let them plunder our greatest wildlife refuge for the sake of oil company profits, then no piece of our natural
heritage is safe from destruction. Please go to http://www.savebiogems.org/arctic
and help keep the Arctic wild and free.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Redford
