Subject: Re: Ending of 4/4/91 episode
From: bates@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov (Andrew Bates)
Date: 1991-04-05, 11:54
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <1991Apr5.140019.7198@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> keb3@po.CWRU.Edu (Keith E. Bitely) writes:
> >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.

    I completely disagree on this one; I don't think Twin Peaks was 
interrupted because of its poor ratings.  I think it was interrupted 
because the hostage situation was an immediate and important occurrence,
and many people (including myself) were anxious to find out what would
happen.  Now, I was just as upset as the next guy about Twin Peaks being
interrupted, and now my tape collection is incomplete, but I understand
WHY it happened, and I'm not about to go off half-cocked and say that my
viewing of the episode is more important than 3 people's lives (I'm not
including the hostage-takers).
   And, by the way, Cheers WAS interrupted.  The entire ending was lost.
So this is more proof that it had nothing to do with Twin Peaks. It's just
news.

Andy Bates.