Conference ljsrv1::tv_chatter

>   Word is that the movie will attempt to tell the stories of both skaters
> from the time they were children to the present.

	Well I don't watch TV [so-called] movies, but I did see a snippit of an
	interview with the actress playing Tonya who said she played the part
	with the assumption Tonya was completely innocent, because she said
	at the time Tonya hadn't plead quilty yet.

  ... and she still hasn't pleaded guilty to anything more than a cover up that
took place over a 2 day period. Most people would never even be charged with
a coverup lasting such a short period of time.

  George

>  ... and she still hasn't pleaded guilty to anything more than a cover up that
> took place over a 2 day period.

	2 days?  The coverup was longer than that!  Plus we all know
	the truth :-)

> Most people would never even be charged with
> a coverup lasting such a short period of time.

	Exactly why she plea bargined to this lesser charge (ie. part of
	the deal was that she wouldn't be tried on other charges)

RE                  <<< Note 256.3 by NETRIX::michaud "Tonya" >>>

>	2 days?  The coverup was longer than that!  Plus we all know
>	the truth :-)

  No, that's a popular press implication but it's not true. Harding won the
U.S. Championship on a Sunday and flew home. On Wednesday they arrested Eckhart
and shortly after she confessed to her part of the incident. The coverup took
place some time between her arrival home and Eckhart's arrest, a period of
3 days at most assuming they talked to her Monday morning.

>> Most people would never even be charged with
>> a coverup lasting such a short period of time.
>	Exactly why she plea bargined to this lesser charge (ie. part of
>	the deal was that she wouldn't be tried on other charges)

  My point is that regardless of what she might have done, she only pleaded to
a charge so insignificant most people are not even charged. If the actress
thought Harding was innocent of the attack before the plea, she has no reason
to believe otherwise because of the plea alone. Harding plead to practically
nothing. It was a major loss for the prosecution. 

  George

>>	2 days?  The coverup was longer than that!
>   No, that's a popular press implication but it's not true. Harding won the
> US Championship on a Sunday and flew home. On Wednesday they arrested Eckhart
> and shortly after she confessed to her part of the incident. The coverup took
> place some time between her arrival home and Eckhart's arrest, a period of
> 3 days at most assuming they talked to her Monday morning.

	Oh, me thinks I get it.  The coverup that she *did* confess to
	in her plea bargin was a two (2) day coverup, even though the
	real coverup started the day (and hasn't ended) of the clubbing?

RE              <<< Note 256.5 by NETRIX::michaud "Tonya Harding" >>>

>	Oh, me thinks I get it.  The coverup that she *did* confess to
>	in her plea bargin was a two (2) day coverup, even though the
>	real coverup started the day (and hasn't ended) of the clubbing?

  Yes, that's basically it. She plead to a 2 day coverup.

  As for any knowledge she may have had of the attack before she returned from
Nationals, that has never been proven so if the actress felt she was innocent 
before, nothing has happened that should have changed that. 

  As far as anyone can tell there is no credible evidence that she took part in
planning the attack. At least I've never seen or heard of any such evidence.
There is the testimony of the three men which hardly seems credible and there
was some document in her hand writing that had Kerrigan's room number but she
claimed that she was going to call to get an autographed picture for a friend. 

  The case against Harding is incredibly weak. It almost seems that charging
her with obstruction was a form of sour grapes because they couldn't prove
anything else. Most people who lie to the police over a 2 day period are never
charged much less brought to trial.

  George 

RE       <<< Note 256.7 by NETRIX::michaud "Tonya, I got away, na na na" >>>

>          -< She's guilty but got away with it, don't ask for more! >-

  How do you know?

  I've been following it as close as anyone and to me it looks like a tough
call. 

  George

>> She's guilty but got away with it, don't ask for more!
> How do you know?

	We may never know for sure, but we'll also never know for
	sure of Regan/Bush's involvement in Iran Contra, or Nixon's
	involvement in Watergate, or if Kennedy had an affair with
	Marilynn Moroe (not to mention who really killed Kennedy),
	or so on and so on.....

> I've been following it as close as anyone and to me it looks like
> a tough call. 

	Tough call?  She had motive (fame and lots of money, both of
	which she'll get anyways now) and oppurtunity.  She was directly
	implicated (to believe Tonya is innocent implies you believe
	her ex-husband really is a nut case himself who believed he
	could win his wife back by doing this and then telling her).
	And why would she call Nancy from across the country to get an
	autograph photo?  It's not like it was going to be a long time
	before she would of seen Nancy again, not to mention the two
	women really weren't on the friendliest terms to begin with.

	In any case, how was the made for TV [so called] `Movie'?  I'm
	assuming like any such beast they took a 1/2 worth of material
	and streatched it to 2 hours :-)

    Mod hat on
    
    Lets not get carried away here......
    
    I would like to keep discussions closer to actually TV shows.
    
    May I suggest, e-mail or other 'discussion' conferences if you would
    like to continue along these lines.
    
    Thank you
    Joyce
    co-mod 

  I thought this was suppose to be the TV "Chatter" notes file. We are
chattering. 

  Besides, this story has had a major impact on TV by inspiring movies and
generating higher than normal ratings when these people compete and the story
itself has been largely impacted by TV and TV coverage.

  If people can discuss why Suzzy left Ralph for Mort in some soap without
discussing TV things like the quality of acting or how well the scripts were
written, why can't we discuss this real life soap that is so closely tied in
with TV? 

  George

    I never said you could not discuss it.  I put a wraning flag up because
    certain people are prone to getting in to heated discussions in this
    conference and getting off track - when I saw the Tonya and Nancy show
    compared to Watergate I wanted to raise the flag.
    
    Jt

RE                     <<< Note 256.12 by ASABET::J_TOMAO >>>

>when I saw the Tonya and Nancy show
>    compared to Watergate I wanted to raise the flag.
    
  What? Major TV events, both ... 

  Remember Senators Sam Erving and Jim Baker, the gripping TV testimony of John
Dean where he spilled the beans, the pictures of Rosmary Wood of the famous "18
minute gap". 

  The two stories are very similar. In both cases they dominated TV news, they
involved alleged criminal activity, they had special TV events (the hearings in
one case, the competition in the other), they resulted in movies and in both
cases they ended with someone being forced to retire because the only thing
that could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt was obstruction of justice. 

  After all, you have a right to know if your national skating champion is a
crook, and Tonya Harding says she is not a crook. 

  I wonder if she has a dog,
  George

    George ... this to discuss the actual show, Not to debate what
    happened.  If you really want to debate whether Tonya is innocent or
    guilty, there's a big discussion on this topic in the SOAPBOX
    conference.  This note is to discuss what you liked/disliked about the
    show itself.  
    
    Give Joyce a break.  She's only trying to keep peace in this file. 
    This is not the file to get into a heated debate .. there are other
    files for that.
    
    Holly
    

RE <<< Note 256.14 by AYRPLN::VENTURA "So much Chocolate, such tight jeans!!" >>>

>    This is not the file to get into a heated debate .. there are other
>    files for that.
    
  That sounds like the rules for the old TV file. I was under the impression
that this file was started because people were unhappy with the way that
conversations were restricted in that file, hence "TV Chatter". Clearly there
are a lot of TV issues around Tonya and Nancy beyond what was in this one
show. 

  In particular, the negative spin that Tonya has been given by TV News has
gone far to give the impression that she is guilty when in fact she is
innocent. The way in which people these days are tried unfairly by the media
based on distorted information is a major TV issue that has impacted not only
Tonya and Nancy but Eric and Lyle Menendez, Lorana Bobbit, Henry Watson (of the
L.A. Riot trial) and others as well. 

  When you spend time watching real trials on Court TV that show all sides of a
story in a fair and impartial way, the unfair persecution by local and network
TV and the resulting reaction by those who assume based on that information
that people are guilty when they are not is really annoying. 

  George 

    RE: George ...
    
>>  That sounds like the rules for the old TV file. I was under the impression
>>that this file was started because people were unhappy with the way that
>>conversations were restricted in that file, hence "TV Chatter". Clearly there
>>are a lot of TV issues around Tonya and Nancy beyond what was in this one
>>show. 

    No, this is NOT the like the rules of the old TV file.  We're
    ENCOURAGING talk about the show.  I wasn't in the last TV file, but I
    understand that chit-chat about shows was not permitted.  However, we
    are not encouraging a debate about the issue.  If you want to debate
    about something, please bring it to another file.  This is an
    easy-going file, and we don't want a lot of controversy.
    
    
>>In particular, the negative spin that Tonya has been given by TV News has
>>gone far to give the impression that she is guilty when in fact she is
>>innocent. The way in which people these days are tried unfairly by the media
>>based on distorted information is a major TV issue that has impacted not only
>>Tonya and Nancy but Eric and Lyle Menendez, Lorana Bobbit, Henry Watson (of the
>>L.A. Riot trial) and others as well. 
    
>>  When you spend time watching real trials on Court TV that show all sides of a
>>story in a fair and impartial way, the unfair persecution by local and network
>>TV and the resulting reaction by those who assume based on that information
>>that people are guilty when they are not is really annoying. 
    
    
    If you want to start a topic about the news and how people are tried
    unfairly by the media, that's fine.  It honestly sounds like a good
    topic.  However, we prefer NOT to have heated debates about whether 
    someone is guilty/not guilty.  That does not belong in this file.  
    If you want to discuss whether the person is guilty/not guilty, 
    please go to SOAPBOX (It's on PEAR::SOAPBOX).  
    
    Holly
    Co-moderator
    

    This topic is now set to write.
    
    Joyce 
    co-mod

    OK, so did anyone actually watch this movie? I saw the beginning,  but
    didn't stick with it (not that I wasn't interested, just didn't want to
    watch with commercials, and didn't feel like  taping it either).
    
    The actresses looked and sounded convincing (I read the TV guide report
    which said they had skating doubles, and Harding's triple axel was
    "created" with editing, and Alexandra Powers, who played Harding, wore
    a prosthetic nose to broaden her own; now I know why she looked
    familiar at times (from LA Law) and not at others).   I liked that it
    was told  unconventionally, with flashbacks, "interviews", and of
    course the recreations of actual events.  It was all public domain
    information, so I'd be curious to know if it remained neutral, or
    implied guilt on Harding's part (beyond the conspiracy to which she
    admitted).
    
    Richard

> This is not the file to get into a heated debate .. 

	I wouldn't say George's and my discussion was a `heated' debate.
	George is just more willing to give Tonya the benifit of the doubt
	than I am :-)

    Interesting show. They used a character called "the Writer" to fill in
    some of the blanks. He would appear periodically and deliver a
    monologue on how he was going to write this screenplay, and what he 
    (and the producers) hoped to accomplish. He also narrated some of the
    story. They also used the "talking heads" technique; i.e. a character
    would be shown against a black background answering questions from an
    unseen interviewer. No new revelations or insights, but I felt that the
    way the story was told, weighed heavily in Nancy's favor.
    Well done enough to hold one's interest, but I'm not sure I would
    recommend this...
    			Jim

> ... the pictures of Rosmary Wood of the famous "18 minute gap". 

	And anyone who's been to an Arlo Guithre (sp?) concert knows
	what was contained in that 18 minute gap :-)