Not to mention holding their hands and tossing them easy questions. I don't enjoy these soft interviews with people that have been convicted (I know not final) of murder.
I would like one to ask her/him about the mop/flood story... and return questions.
I would like to hear him explain the knife pricking Meredith story... and return questions.
I would like to hear her explain the bathmat boogie... and return questions.
I would like to hear her explain the previous prank before she went to Italy... and return questions.
I would like to hear her explain where the money for the large deposit came from when she withdrew a much smaller amount earlier... and return questions.
I would like to hear her explain calling a cocaine dealer/friend both before and after Meredith's murder... and return questions.
I would like to hear her explain why she didn't try Meredith's phones while standing outside her locked door... and return questions.
I would like to hear him explain why he wore his knife into a murder investigation involving a knife... and returned amazed questions.
A really good reporter/commentator could really leave them looking/sounding/seeming guilty as all get out with some probing questions.
Heck... they might break down right on tv. Think of the ratings!
So far... nobody is able or willing to do any of that. :banghead:
That will
NEVER happen. For the reason that these are just
"bait" stories for these networks. IMO. Meaning, they are "easy" stories where they don't have to care that much about getting the actual facts straight, b/c they are not of great importance (to the general public) and most people don't know enough about the case to even be able to tell if the reporter is asking the "right" quesitons or not. The networks just use them as
bait, to reel in viewers and increase their ratings.
Actually, the reporter cannot ask the right questions, b/c the reporter really knows nothing about the case. IMO. They don't have the time to study the details of the case, nor it is of any importance to them. What probably happens is that their producer gives them a list of general questions and they just ask those. There are no follow-up questions, b/c how do you ask a follow-up to an original question which you know nothing about in the first place?
Additionally, IMO, Amanda and RS, or in these "fluff" stories, the guest, probably has given the producer a list of questions they won't answer from the very beginning. They would never do these interviews in the first place if they thought there would be hard questions. IMO.
Most mainstream reporters don't care about getting the facts right or even learning anything about these type of stories, b/c it does nothing for their reputation and career-goals. Now, if they were interviewing President Obama, you can bet they would do their full research and triple-check all of their facts and be on top of everything (hopefully). That would be a big deal for their career.
These other stories I don't think they worry about the facts or details, b/c they view them as just "fluff" stories.
JMO.
