Empress said:

Milty2 said:

Now THAT is the 2nd most hysterical thing I've read on the Org this week. I'd hate to see what news shows you really watch lol.

[Edited 4/14/21 5:09am]

I was thinking the same thing. I must be 110 as well.

This site is full of know it alls -

It's just a dumb, uninformed statement. And yes lately, lots of know-it-all's.

OperatingThetan said:

Milty2 said:

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said:

It's just a dumb, uninformed statement. And yes lately, lots of know-it-all's.

This is your template for a good news magazine program? Wow. Just wow. These responses tell me that some of the fanatics here know very little, sadly, of the types of news programs that exist outside of America. There are countless other examples that report on news/ lifestyle subjects rigorously; and with flair and irony. They make this folksy, cosy, old-time, surface level nonsense look like Playtime with Percy. Broaden your horizons. Do more research.

I've worked in broadcast and video production since 1989 and continue to to this day. There is nothing fluffy or ironic about 60 Minutes. What a silly, stupid statement. It's a serious news programme. News is not meant to have flair or be ironic. News is meant to report facts and to give a viewer the information that does or might concern them. You are intentionally ignorant to what 60 Minutes has done and achieved in it's 53 years on TV.

If you like flair and irony, stay with TMZ and Entertainment Tonight and be gleefully uninformed.

[Edited 4/14/21 7:59am]

Milty2 said:

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said:

I've worked in broadcast and video production since 1989 and continue to to this day. There is nothing fluffy or ironic about 60 Minutes. What a silly, stupid statement. It's a serious news programme. News is not meant to have flair or be ironic. News is meant to report facts and to give a viewer the information that does or might concern them. You are intentionally ignorant to what 60 Minutes has done and achieved in it's 53 years on TV.

If you like flair and irony, stay with TMZ and Entertainment Tonight and be gleefully uninformed.

[Edited 4/14/21 7:59am]

Why do people here never respond to what’s being said? I’m not talking about the show’s history (even though that’s overblown; it was never as good as self-described tastemakers told you it was), I’m comparing it to Intl shows being made today. There are many news magazine shows around the world that are far superior to this silliness. I can name them. I strongly suspect you can’t. Given this, you don’t sound very credible. When you describe what you do, it reads like a snippet from a Wikipedia page. Did you cut and paste? No one talks like that.

I'm certain there are many international news shows that are quality but I'm not talking about them. That's not the point of your dumb statement. Why you would comment on something you know nothing about anyway?

I did not take anything from wikipedia. This is what I do and so I have intimate knowledge about news gathering and tv production. You choose to be intentionally ignorant and people who are knowledgeable of and have concern for the World around them don't talk like the uninformed thing that you are.

I suggest you go watch the film Good Night, Good Luck. At least watch the first scene where David Strathairn who portrays Edward R Murrow, who was a real person (you should look him up and learn), gives a speech about what he believes a TV should be used for. It's only 5 mins long but it might be too much of a burden on your limited mental capacities. It's a period piece set in the 50s and so it does have flair. Maybe you'll just like what the actors are wearing instead.

I bid you "adieu".

[Edited 4/14/21 8:55am]

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said:

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said: Why do people here never respond to what’s being said? I’m not talking about the show’s history (even though that’s overblown; it was never as good as self-described tastemakers told you it was), I’m comparing it to Intl shows being made today. There are many news magazine shows around the world that are far superior to this silliness. I can name them. I strongly suspect you can’t. Given this, you don’t sound very credible. When you describe what you do, it reads like a snippet from a Wikipedia page. Did you cut and paste? No one talks like that.

I'm certain there are many international news shows that are quality but I'm not talking about them. That's not the point of your dumb statement. Why you would comment on something you know nothing about anyway?

I did not take anything from wikipedia. This is what I do and so I have intimate knowledge about news gathering and tv production. You choose to be intentionally ignorant and people who are knowledgeable of and have concern for the World around them don't talk like the uninformed thing that you are.

I suggest you go watch the film Good Night, Good Luck. At least watch the first scene where David Strathairn who portrays Edward R Murrow, who was a real person (you should look him up and learn), gives a speech about what he believes a TV should be used for. It's only 5 mins long but it might be too much of a burden on your limited mental capacities. It's a period piece set in the 50s and so it does have flair. Maybe you'll just like what the actors are wearing instead.

I bid you "adieu".

[Edited 4/14/21 8:55am]

No. I'm making the comparison to Intl shows. You responded to me. It's incumbent on you to stick to this point. Otherwise, why respond? Create another entry instead. I know about Good Night. I worked on it. As for Edward R. Morrow. Fine. He never worked with 60 Mins, though? You're mind's a jumble isn't it?

OperatingThetan said:

RighteousOne said:

This response is a complete non-sequitir. It has nothing to do with what I said.

Let me make my point simpler for you then - the segment was a success for the Estate, despite your criticism. Whether it was debateably 'amateur' or not, it was effective from a sales-perspective.

How about this for simple? It's success, or lack thereof, has nothing to do with quality. Being a Prince fan, you must know this concept, surely?

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said:

I'm certain there are many international news shows that are quality but I'm not talking about them. That's not the point of your dumb statement. Why you would comment on something you know nothing about anyway?

I did not take anything from wikipedia. This is what I do and so I have intimate knowledge about news gathering and tv production. You choose to be intentionally ignorant and people who are knowledgeable of and have concern for the World around them don't talk like the uninformed thing that you are.

I suggest you go watch the film Good Night, Good Luck. At least watch the first scene where David Strathairn who portrays Edward R Murrow, who was a real person (you should look him up and learn), gives a speech about what he believes a TV should be used for. It's only 5 mins long but it might be too much of a burden on your limited mental capacities. It's a period piece set in the 50s and so it does have flair. Maybe you'll just like what the actors are wearing instead.

I bid you "adieu".

[Edited 4/14/21 8:55am]

No. I'm making the comparison to Intl shows. You responded to me. It's incumbent on you to stick to this point. Otherwise, why respond? Create another entry instead. I know about Good Night. I worked on it. As for Edward R. Morrow. Fine. He never worked with 60 Mins, though? You're mind's a jumble isn't it?

You are literally just making stuff up and then forgetting what you said earlier. You are really bad at diversion Lol. Clown.

[Edited 4/14/21 11:18am]

Milty2 said:

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said:

You are literally just making stuff up and then forgetting what you said earlier. You are really bad at diversion Lol. Clown.

[Edited 4/14/21 11:18am]

That’s not an answer (no matter how heavily edited). Also, ad hominems immediately show the weakness in an argument. Not that you had one to begin with.

Oh yes, self-"Righteous One".

Piss off.

gandorb said:

coldcoffeeandcocacola said:

Fantastic to have an exposure for prince, the more the estate makes hopefully the more we will get from them

60 minutes and CBS early morning news are worthy places to start getting some exposure of this release. Given that it is a release of a mostly unheard of album, it needs more publicity than the release of the deluxe classics to catch the attention of non-orgers. I hjave no qualms about the clip that was posted in this thread. Not scummy at all and some good publicity for Paisley Park. What is not to like?

I'll take the condescinding, "what is not to like?", attitude, for 1$, Alex

60 minutes has a pretty decent track record. I don't recall too many blatant fuckups aside from the Dan Rather George Bush thing (and I think that was a setup by Rove to discredit Rather). I don't think it was them that fucked up the Duke Lacross story but maybe it was.

Wikipedia gives me 15 under the category of "controversies", which doesn't always even mean a mistake or an egregious error and that's pretty good for a news show that's been on the air for 53 years tackling a TON of hard subjects. They do some fluff and bio pieces but whatever. Not anything is gonna land and even the best journalists get it wrong sometimes and have to issue retractions.

Milty2 said:

RighteousOne said:

Milty2 said: Why do people here never respond to what’s being said? I’m not talking about the show’s history (even though that’s overblown; it was never as good as self-described tastemakers told you it was), I’m comparing it to Intl shows being made today. There are many news magazine shows around the world that are far superior to this silliness. I can name them. I strongly suspect you can’t. Given this, you don’t sound very credible. When you describe what you do, it reads like a snippet from a Wikipedia page. Did you cut and paste? No one talks like that.

I'm certain there are many international news shows that are quality but I'm not talking about them. That's not the point of your dumb statement. Why you would comment on something you know nothing about anyway?

I did not take anything from wikipedia. This is what I do and so I have intimate knowledge about news gathering and tv production. You choose to be intentionally ignorant and people who are knowledgeable of and have concern for the World around them don't talk like the uninformed thing that you are.

I suggest you go watch the film Good Night, Good Luck. At least watch the first scene where David Strathairn who portrays Edward R Murrow, who was a real person (you should look him up and learn), gives a speech about what he believes a TV should be used for. It's only 5 mins long but it might be too much of a burden on your limited mental capacities. It's a period piece set in the 50s and so it does have flair. Maybe you'll just like what the actors are wearing instead.

I bid you "adieu".

"It's only 5 mins long."

The actual speech wasn't only five minutes long. It was nearly 5000 words - which would take at least 20 minutes to read aloud. So there was a lot of selective editing. Though, to be fair, Murrow was in rare bloviating form - and no TV audience would have sat through that.

He got his wish, though. He thought news and editorial should be the main event on television stations - all television stations. He was a big fan of telling people what to think. He would have loved CNN.

And before you dismiss my comments as being from someone "not in the business," let me tell you that I started my career in broadcast journalism (radio). I won awards for reporting. I know plenty about news gathering. And I'm here to tell you that pack journalism, groupthink, conflicts of interest, and advocacy disguised as journalism were rife when I was working in the field and it's only gotten worse.

60 Minutes used to be great. Now? It's no better than any other "news" program.

Genesia said:

Milty2 said:

I'm certain there are many international news shows that are quality but I'm not talking about them. That's not the point of your dumb statement. Why you would comment on something you know nothing about anyway?

I did not take anything from wikipedia. This is what I do and so I have intimate knowledge about news gathering and tv production. You choose to be intentionally ignorant and people who are knowledgeable of and have concern for the World around them don't talk like the uninformed thing that you are.

I suggest you go watch the film Good Night, Good Luck. At least watch the first scene where David Strathairn who portrays Edward R Murrow, who was a real person (you should look him up and learn), gives a speech about what he believes a TV should be used for. It's only 5 mins long but it might be too much of a burden on your limited mental capacities. It's a period piece set in the 50s and so it does have flair. Maybe you'll just like what the actors are wearing instead.

I bid you "adieu".

"It's only 5 mins long."

The actual speech wasn't only five minutes long. It was nearly 5000 words - which would take at least 20 minutes to read aloud. So there was a lot of selective editing. Though, to be fair, Murrow was in rare bloviating form - and no TV audience would have sat through that.

He got his wish, though. He thought news and editorial should be the main event on television stations - all television stations. He was a big fan of telling people what to think. He would have loved CNN.

And before you dismiss my comments as being from someone "not in the business," let me tell you that I started my career in broadcast journalism (radio). I won awards for reporting. I know plenty about news gathering. And I'm here to tell you that pack journalism, groupthink, conflicts of interest, and advocacy disguised as journalism were rife when I was working in the field and it's only gotten worse.

60 Minutes used to be great. Now? It's no better than any other "news" program.

I said the scene was 5 mins long. I didnt say the actual speech was 5 mins. I'm sure the actual speech was longer.

SchlomoThaHomo said:

Marco81 said:

Can you also cite your sources for all these things? Who said he forgot how to play bass?

No it was Brownmark who said he visited Prince at Paisley and Prince asked him if he brought his guitar, and Mark said something like, “I don’t play guitar, I play bass,” and Prince said, “OK, well grab your bass then.” It gave Mark the impression that Prince didn’t remember he was a bass player.

technically a bass is a bass guitar. Just sayin'

Zannaloaf said:

SPOOKYGAS said:

Well I thought it was a good bit of PR for PRince! If it helps sell a few more units for the estate then that is good for us, the fans. [Edited 4/16/21 7:15am]

I agree with you, yes - although, the editing of the segment did leave something to be desired. By that, the sections with the reporter and Morris Hayes just listening to the music were awkward. Some footage of PP as the song was playing and then some commentary on Hayes' work on the song/Prince's reductionist editing would have been nice. Perhaps for this niche audience of one, at least.

[Edited 4/18/21 7:46am]

Possibly showing my ignorance here - I know Morris has been MD for the modern day Prince-less NPG, but was he ever "Prince's musical director" as claimed on the TV show? He's awesome, I was just curious. Also hearing Shelby's voice just sends chills, so good.

I love Morris' Prince impression. Not sure why some of you hate the segment so much; it's perfectly decent for people who aren't already Prince fans or even fans like me who listen to a lot of his work but don't tend to delve that much into his life beyond the music. The snippet of Born 2 Die is promising. Check the Record not quite so much, but hey, I'm excited for a "new" Prince album.

ian said:

Zannaloaf said:

technically a bass is a bass guitar. Just sayin'

Tell that to the fish.