Quotes About Media coverage

In history this is exactly the same as in the daily newspaper. The normal does not make news.

The sports page records people's accomplishments, the front page usually records nothing, but man's failures.

Covering the NBA is about covering people. I think that's why it's sometimes compared to a reality show - because you actually get the chance to know the characters, not just the teams.

The problem that I think is reasonable to assert about Fox and its coverage is that they make up stories out of whole cloth and then make a big deal out of them.

I made international news by giving Misty [May-Treanor] a playful slap on the back--a little north of the traditional target.

By the same token, I think news has more and more of a pro bono aspect to all the networks. When we do our election coverages throughout this coming year, it's not a money-maker for us. It is more of a public service situation.

I think that the media spends far too much time [on personalities].

I had some people say to me, you don't - you wouldn't give air time to a holocaust denier. Why bother covering if [Donald Trump] tweet is totally crazy?

The TV channels never ran out of sponsorship for their live telecasts of despair. They never ran out of despair

Without news to feed it, the biggest story starves.

I knew that these more specialized reporters were best equipped to understand and then explain what we were doing and why. Other media would pick up on their reporting.

We were more likely to see an unfair or inaccurate story from journalists who did not usually cover the Fed and were, consequently, less well informed.

It's just astonishing to me that the media is so interested in how much it costs to secure our border and has no interest in the cost of refusing to secure our border.

A lot of newsrooms have thought very carefully about how they cover race. I don't think the same conversations have gone on regarding women.

Given the growing popularity of pop culture conventions, many of them are selling out, leaving a lot of fans out in the dark and having to trawl the Internet for bits and pieces of news that relate to these events.

But if you cover the World Series on the news or do a feature on an Ali boxing match then all of a sudden ears go up all over the place and people say what the hell are you doing. The reason for that is that we're doing something that people are really interested in.

I'm old enough to remember the end of World War II. On Aug. 14, 1946, a year after the Japanese were defeated, most newspapers and magazines had single articles commemorating the end of the war.

If there is one way that I would sum up what the 2016 election was on cable news, it was world-class journalists interviewing morons.

I've been intrigued by 'Le Monde' ever since work took me to Paris once, and I noted that on a day when there was some huge worldwide story, the paper led its front page on some cabinet changes in Turkey. It implied a magnificent disdain for the quotidian folderol of mere news.

Whenever I organize or participate in public protest I get really worried that it will just suck, be really small, embarrassing, and the media will laugh at me. Oftentimes, it is really small and most of the time the media laughs at us.

What worries me is that, because of the amount of media coverage of food, Britain seems to have become a foodie nation - but I'm not sure it actually has. I'm not sure there's been a huge change in the pantry at home or what we cook for supper.

Richard Nixon was the best thing that ever happened to journalism. I mean this guy was wonderful. Just when you thought he could get no worse, he got worse.

'Girls' is a huge show, as far as buzz, and magazine covers, and getting a ton of copy, and awards. And yet I don't think the viewership is huge.

Al Jazeera is not a tool of revolution. We do not create revolutions. However, when something of that magnitude happens, we are at the center of the coverage.