Subject: Re: Ending of 4/4/91 episode
From: keb3@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith E. Bitely)
Date: 1991-04-05, 06:00
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In a previous article, c60b-1eb@web-1c.berkeley.edu (Ivan K Choi) says:

> >I am a serious TP fan (well, at least I consider I am) and I hate network
> >interruptions like almost all other TV viewers, but come on, it's a TV SHOW!!!
> >3 innocent people died!!!  The other three of course deserve worse punishment
> >than death, if that's possible--don't give me that "innocent until proven
> >guilty" crap...If I were you, I'll be upset, not because of the interruption,
> >but because you are an insensitive person who would say that this was
> >"pointless."
> >
Sure, it's serious.  But, do you think the station showed the news story
because they 'cared' or because they thought it was 'sensational' and
'quality' news that might attract and make viewers interested?  Considering
TP's poor ratings, it's quite possible that they thought this would increase
viewership for a certain amount of time.  Had it been during Cheers, I wonder
if an NBC affiliate would have carried the news story?  I also notice that
sports *never* seems to be pre-empted, which really irritates me.  So, I have
to agree with the original person.  This pre-emption (while I did not 
experience it) was unnecessary.  It could have waited until the news or 
in between shows.  Besides, what good or useful purpose did it serve to
show it right when it was shown?  Most likely, none.

Keith
-- Zone motifs: Rats, peeing on lit trees, Catlicks, golf, aliases, dogs and squirrels, pink flamingos, donuts, hair color, abortion, mayors, gods and goddesses, ministers and mistresses, romance, Twin and Triple Peaks, sex, greetings and non-greetings, Penultimates, Zippy, lud, power tools, and raymond