TVNewsAnalyzer 0 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 dan gross reported that a anchor and reporter who are married is messing around with each other but didn't say what station it was. I didn't expect him to name the anchor or reporter but to me without knowing what station it was just made his mention of this very pointless. I emailed him and he said it was called a "BLIND ITEM" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 409 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 KYW's Alycia Lane and WCBS' Chris Wragge. It's old news that was reported in the NY Post a month ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 KYW's Alycia Lane and WCBS' Chris Wragge. It's old news that was reported in the NY Post a month ago. No, the phraseology used makes me think he's talking about this. And he's two months late to the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hopdevil 1 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 KYW's Alycia Lane and WCBS' Chris Wragge. It's old news that was reported in the NY Post a month ago. Gross specifically mentioned an "anchor and reporter" - both with spouses. Lane (divorced) and Wragge (separated) are both anchors, so it ain't them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 409 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 Ohhhh we're talking about those two. I know who it is and am not at liberty to say whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scranton 23 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bars-n-tone 35 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 KYW's Alycia Lane and WCBS' Chris Wragge. It's old news that was reported in the NY Post a month ago. Nope. The two mentioned in the Daily News are not being discreet. Kinda surprised that it took so long for Dan to pick up on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsmaniac 0 Posted September 19, 2007 Share Posted September 19, 2007 I am. Well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbruce 0 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 This item is definitely NOT about Alycia. What I wonder is why this is a blind item this time. Didn't Dan name Channel 10 several months ago when he ran a mention of two married anchors in an affair? Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I remember it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 This item is definitely NOT about Alycia. What I wonder is why this is a blind item this time. Didn't Dan name Channel 10 several months ago when he ran a mention of two married anchors in an affair? Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I remember it. You're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 409 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 This item is definitely NOT about Alycia. What I wonder is why this is a blind item this time. Didn't Dan name Channel 10 several months ago when he ran a mention of two married anchors in an affair? Maybe I'm wrong but that's the way I remember it. That affair was not from 10 but somewhere else up the dial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVNewsAnalyzer 0 Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 sounds like channel 29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbruce 0 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There certainly was an anchor-anchor entanglement at Channel Ten several months ago. This current one is not at Channel 29 --- unless the same anchor/reporter thing is going on simultaneously at two separate stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There certainly was an anchor-anchor entanglement at Channel Ten several months ago. This current one is not at Channel 29 --- unless the same anchor/reporter thing is going on simultaneously at two separate stations. No. It's not 10. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 409 Posted September 20, 2007 Share Posted September 20, 2007 There certainly was an anchor-anchor entanglement at Channel Ten several months ago. That was several years ago. The one that Gross mentioned a few months back was indeed at 29. This current one sounds like it's either at 3 or 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lugnuts6 89 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Maybe its true..3's company !! I'll say KYW 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake 3 Posted September 22, 2007 Share Posted September 22, 2007 Maybe it's the real reason Susan Barnett had to move to an evening reporter slot. You go, Ukee! Seriously, saying things like "I know but am not at liberty to say" is so lame. Are we back in grade school? I'll believe it when you say who it is, or don't say anything at all. Anyone can imply they "know" all kinds of things. is this different than the anchor-anchor story reported months ago? Supposedly one of the anchors got kicked to reporter, at least for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nigelbruce 0 Posted September 23, 2007 Share Posted September 23, 2007 Wrong-o. This sad tale does NOT star Susan or Ukee. And I still say there was a channel 10 scandal only a few months ago because it was being talked about everywhere (in the business). Maybe it never made the paper? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake 3 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 I was joking about Ukee. ;D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 Wrong-o. This sad tale does NOT star Susan or Ukee. And I still say there was a channel 10 scandal only a few months ago because it was being talked about everywhere (in the business). Maybe it never made the paper? Buddy, let it go with 10. No. The "scandal" months ago wasn't at 10. And it made the paper as a blind item. Not 10. Do you work at 10? Are you trying to score some cheap pub by saying your talent's real slutty among themselves? Really, come on, Tim Lake and who? It. Wasn't. 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bars-n-tone 35 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 And I still say there was a channel 10 scandal only a few months ago because it was being talked about everywhere (in the business). Maybe it never made the paper? There WAS something at WCAU a few months back. I don't know for certain if it made the paper or not, but I was under the impression that what we heard was the topic of Dan's previous blind item. This current item that has you all in a tizzy is, I believe strongly, from KYW. And, no, I will not say who the "couple" is, because even if the people in question are stupid enough to wreck their marriages in public, I still won't help them it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 And I still say there was a channel 10 scandal only a few months ago because it was being talked about everywhere (in the business). Maybe it never made the paper? There WAS something at WCAU a few months back. I don't know for certain if it made the paper or not, but I was under the impression that what we heard was the topic of Dan's previous blind item. This current item that has you all in a tizzy is, I believe strongly, from KYW. And, no, I will not say who the "couple" is, because even if the people in question are stupid enough to wreck their marriages in public, I still won't help them it. Your impression would be wrong. Dan's blind item from July wasn't from WCAU. Again: Not. 10. I'm with you though on this one being at 3, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WCAUTVNBC10 409 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The thing that bars is talking about at 10 did not make the paper. Dan's July dealie was completely unrelated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Horn 78 Posted September 24, 2007 Share Posted September 24, 2007 The thing that bars is talking about at 10 did not make the paper. Dan's July dealie was completely unrelated. All right, then. Bars: Sorry for the snark, but I was speaking in terms specific to Dan's article(s). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsmaniac 0 Posted September 25, 2007 Share Posted September 25, 2007 Well not too many anchors to choose from... So maybe it's larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.