Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



Hello, soap fans -- and welcome to Daytime Royalty!

For those unfamiliar, we are an uncensored community for fans and lovers of the daytime genre. We have a no-holds-barred atmosphere in regards to the shows, writers, actors etc. but we do not allow member bashing in any form.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member, please log in to your account to access all of our features.

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
SUDS REPORT Higley update; Kelly Ripa Vs. Ehlers
Topic Started: Aug 1 2008, 11:31 AM (4,781 Views)
Red Mist
Member Avatar


Thanks Nelson....Good article. :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jiggs
Member Avatar


Matt
Aug 2 2008, 01:03 PM
I remember a few years back either SOD or SOW ran several very negative critiques/articles about Days that so pissed off Corday that he pulled any and all support from the offending mag (actor availability, BTS info, etc.) from the offending mag for quite some time. The was a big todo about it.
Wasn't that SOW, and Langan and Corday wrote a letter to the editors complaining about the negative article they wrote about GH? And subsequently pulled support (like you mentioned). I believe even Mimi Torchin quit over that mess.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Classic Soap Fan

Jiggs
Aug 2 2008, 07:17 PM
Matt
Aug 2 2008, 01:03 PM
I remember a few years back either SOD or SOW ran several very negative critiques/articles about Days that so pissed off Corday that he pulled any and all support from the offending mag (actor availability, BTS info, etc.) from the offending mag for quite some time. The was a big todo about it.
Wasn't that SOW, and Langan and Corday wrote a letter to the editors complaining about the negative article they wrote about GH? And subsequently pulled support (like you mentioned). I believe even Mimi Torchin quit over that mess.
Thank you, Jiggs! I knew it was something like that, but I couldn't remember all of the details precisely.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tammy
Member Avatar


Thanks for psoting.

Okay I though Ehlers was supposed to originally be a recast for Liza not Hayle? Anywho... Rip needs to come back or they need to get a recast. Because Hayle is a much needed part on AMC IMO.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Days4Life


Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 02:20 PM
That is where the problem comes in with this board. Many of you are bashing him, but Nelson shared info with the members here that he was not willing to share in his article. He was giving us and his fellow DR members more info and what do many of us do - we stab him in the back.

He gave us those details because many on this board pushed and pushed and pushed. I doubt seriously he will ever do it again after the way he is being treated. He didn't post the info anywhere else and some of the stuff that Nelson said here was picked up by members here and taken to other baords by posters and not by him.

As you said on the bottom of your post - what Nelson said is just speculation and he left it at that. He said that if Days complied that might be all there is to it. He did not say for a fact that it was all that they would do - he was just speculating and stating that he heard that might be the end of it.

Again he was told what the photographic evidence was and that it was turned over to the WGA. he has no control over what Days does and what the WGA does. Taht is up to them. All Nelson and TV Guide do is report what they do.

I commend you for your love for the show, but I learned a long time ago Days isn't perfect and the people behind the scenes at Days are not perfect. Days has been the scene of backstage upheaval and fights since the 70's. William Bell and Betty Corday went to court. Pat Falken Smith sued Betty Corday and others on teh Days staff - not once but twice - and won. The ladies behind the scenes in the late 70's were constant fodder for the mags for their backstage feuds with Susan Seaforth Hayes. The Hayes spoke out harshly about Days to Soap Opera Digest in 1984 when they were both fired from the show. Even though Betty Corday and Al Rabin were the Exec. Producers at the time, the only one that spoke in the article about the firings was Ken Corday. Both Thaao and Joe have spoken out harshly toward Days in the last few years.

The people behind Days are not perfect - they are human just like all of us. They make mistakes - sometimes small ones and sometimes big ones. To those than can ignore it out of love for the show that is great, but it still doesn't make the wrong that they do go away.
I truly had no idea about all the scandal and goings on behind the scenes at DAYS over the years. I'm actually glad I didn't know all that at the time because I was able to simply enjoy the show and now that I know, it taints things a little bit. But I have to wonder--why hasn't someone written a soap within a soap TV series? That would be quite a drama.

Anyway, thanks to Nelson for being willing to report the news as he knows it. It takes guts to put out information you know isn't going to be popular. I wish I knew all the facts, but I'm sure I never will and that's probably for the best. I think I prefer the fictional Salem to the real life goings on. And I hope no one takes any of my comments for bashing, because for me it just comes down to wanting to believe everything is going to work out somehow and the show will continue. I'm trying desperately to stay positive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


Steve Frame
Aug 2 2008, 02:20 PM
Many of you are bashing him, but Nelson shared info with the members here that he was not willing to share in his article.
Maybe some are bashing, but some of us are also asking for more information regarding the sources and getting denied or ignored. A ballpark number (again, as in "about 5", or "around 10") of how many people corroborated his story, along with some actual quotes from other sources than just the source "close to" Higley. It was bad reporting.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tammy
Member Avatar


I think it was good reporting. Not may reporters that I know of that reveal their "sources". JMO ;)
Edited by Tammy, Aug 3 2008, 12:07 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt
Member Avatar
Classic Soap Fan

Yeah. Most reporters with undercover sources don't reveal their identities. That's why you hear about reporters going to jail in high profile stories (especially involving crime and politics) because they won't reveal their sources. Many times, those sources only feel comfortable revealing what they know to a reporter only on the condition of remaining annonimous out of their own fears of retaliation or losing their jobs. IMO, I don't see how this is any different. Nelson has a personal responsibility to those sources *not* to reveal their identities out of respect for that source/reporter confidintiality and the source's own personal needs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


I don't see the big deal about how many sources there are any way. The majority of times it is one person that leaks stuff out of the studio to a reporter - it is not as if he has 5 or 6 people who were willing to risk their jobs.

Watergate was broken by one source who went to Woodward and Bernstein. Did that make it not happen because it was one source who went to the reporters?

It was only Thaao Penghlis who revealed to the press that it was Marlena who was the SSK killer back in 2003. Should the reporter have said well if I don't have more than just you telling me this I shouldn't print it.

The majority of stories are broken by one source or one insider. the stuff that we reported here back last year about John's death - came from one source.

I just don't see what the big deal is about how many sources. It is hardly ever a time when a reporter reveals that any way.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

I agree with Steve and the others.

First off, many media outlets knew about this story (including SON) and Nelson was the only one that reported it. Now we have Linda Hirsh citing Nelson and adding it a bit to it. This is serious business and no doubt others stayed away from this story because they didn't want to receive the amount of backlash Nelson is, which IMO is unfair. Why does it matter how many sources? The names can't be revealed so what's the point? Hell, having one source is enough in a story like this considering Nelson is very reliable and doesn't just report anything.

It was mentioned in this thread how some posters here on DR even heard from other sources that this story was true from very reliable sources and even have a fairly good idea who the diva is, with evidence to back it up. It's just that it was danced around and people are reluctant to say it because it's not out in the open and those that did acquire the info want to make sure, with good reason, that it doesn't get back to them.

I'm very grateful Nelson reported this story and think the way it was reported is fine. He was also nice enough to address some issues and clarify some while also speculating what may or may not happen. He told us it could all very well blow over but that it was still going to be bad for Days regardless (with Higley staying and so on). Nelson went out of his way and took a major risk bringing us this story and I hate how he is being treated across the net and even on here to a certain degree. Not everyone has to like him or his column but I do think his efforts to bring this to us should be appreciated and that he shouldn't be criticized for things that are out of his hands due to the circumstances.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


PhoenixRising05
Aug 3 2008, 12:29 AM
I agree with Steve and the others.

First off, many media outlets knew about this story (including SON) and Nelson was the only one that reported it. Now we have Linda Hirsh citing Nelson and adding it a bit to it. This is serious business and no doubt others stayed away from this story because they didn't want to receive the amount of backlash Nelson is, which IMO is unfair. Why does it matter how many sources? The names can't be revealed so what's the point? Hell, having one source is enough in a story like this considering Nelson is very reliable and doesn't just report anything.

It was mentioned in this thread how some posters here on DR even heard from other sources that this story was true from very reliable sources and even have a fairly good idea who the diva is, with evidence to back it up. It's just that it was danced around and people are reluctant to say it because it's not out in the open and those that did acquire the info want to make sure, with good reason, that it doesn't get back to them.

I'm very grateful Nelson reported this story and think the way it was reported is fine. He was also nice enough to address some issues and clarify some while also speculating what may or may not happen. He told us it could all very well blow over but that it was still going to be bad for Days regardless (with Higley staying and so on). Nelson went out of his way and took a major risk bringing us this story and I hate how he is being treated across the net and even on here to a certain degree. Not everyone has to like him or his column but I do think his efforts to bring this to us should be appreciated and that he shouldn't be criticized for things that are out of his hands due to the circumstances.
Phoenix, guess what - I completely agree!! :wizard:

imo journalists serve an incredibly important role in society, even in the 'soap world'. I'll add my thanks to Nelson for having reported this and especially for having used this site as the venue to impart much of his information.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PhoenixRising05
Member Avatar
GET EM STEPH!!

Ellie
Aug 3 2008, 12:38 AM
PhoenixRising05
Aug 3 2008, 12:29 AM
I agree with Steve and the others.

First off, many media outlets knew about this story (including SON) and Nelson was the only one that reported it. Now we have Linda Hirsh citing Nelson and adding it a bit to it. This is serious business and no doubt others stayed away from this story because they didn't want to receive the amount of backlash Nelson is, which IMO is unfair. Why does it matter how many sources? The names can't be revealed so what's the point? Hell, having one source is enough in a story like this considering Nelson is very reliable and doesn't just report anything.

It was mentioned in this thread how some posters here on DR even heard from other sources that this story was true from very reliable sources and even have a fairly good idea who the diva is, with evidence to back it up. It's just that it was danced around and people are reluctant to say it because it's not out in the open and those that did acquire the info want to make sure, with good reason, that it doesn't get back to them.

I'm very grateful Nelson reported this story and think the way it was reported is fine. He was also nice enough to address some issues and clarify some while also speculating what may or may not happen. He told us it could all very well blow over but that it was still going to be bad for Days regardless (with Higley staying and so on). Nelson went out of his way and took a major risk bringing us this story and I hate how he is being treated across the net and even on here to a certain degree. Not everyone has to like him or his column but I do think his efforts to bring this to us should be appreciated and that he shouldn't be criticized for things that are out of his hands due to the circumstances.
Phoenix, guess what - I completely agree!! :wizard:

imo journalists serve an incredibly important role in society, even in the 'soap world'. I'll add my thanks to Nelson for having reported this and especially for having used this site as the venue to impart much of his information.
YAY!! :dance: .

We finally agree :laugh: .

That makes me happy. Seriously, though, it's refreshing to have someone who will take a risk and put it all out there just so the fans can be informed. The mags and other sources don't do that much anymore so I'm glad someone does.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ellie


PhoenixRising05
Aug 3 2008, 12:45 AM
YAY!! :dance: .

We finally agree :laugh: .

lol!! We've found common ground. :smile:


Quote:
 
Seriously, though, it's refreshing to have someone who will take a risk and put it all out there just so the fans can be informed. The mags and other sources don't do that much anymore so I'm glad someone does.
Exactly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


Steve Frame
Aug 3 2008, 12:12 AM
I don't see the big deal about how many sources there are any way. The majority of times it is one person that leaks stuff out of the studio to a reporter - it is not as if he has 5 or 6 people who were willing to risk their jobs.

Watergate was broken by one source who went to Woodward and Bernstein. Did that make it not happen because it was one source who went to the reporters?

It was only Thaao Penghlis who revealed to the press that it was Marlena who was the SSK killer back in 2003. Should the reporter have said well if I don't have more than just you telling me this I shouldn't print it.

The majority of stories are broken by one source or one insider. the stuff that we reported here back last year about John's death - came from one source.

I just don't see what the big deal is about how many sources. It is hardly ever a time when a reporter reveals that any way.
Difference is: This isn't Watergate, nor anything as serious as it. And it's not some actor dropping spoilers about a storyline that he himself is involved in.

It might take one person to break the story, but once it's out there he should have other sources coming out with additional information. And any good reporter would check, recheck and check their story again to confirm it's credibility (ie. corroborating this person's statements with that from other reliable sources). He's getting the shit thrown on him by people because he did not do this in any visible manner (ie. quotes from more than just one of those sources).

By the way, to Tammy and anyone else who is misunderstanding, I never said that he should name names and give up the person's identity. Not once. I even flat out stated that he couldn't give out that information, lest he lose the trust of those who give him his information and costs them their job.

Him, also, listing a ballpark number of sources and/or quoting from more than just one wouldn't cost those people their jobs. The only way they'd get fired is if A) He gave out their names or B) they weren't careful about how and were they gave out that information and someone found out it was them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


I am fully determined with some people that it wouldn't matter if it was 10 people who spilled the beans or 5 or 50. No matter what Nelson says or whoever says they won't believe and they will demand more.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cjknick
Member Avatar


Steve Frame
Aug 3 2008, 09:15 AM
I am fully determined with some people that it wouldn't matter if it was 10 people who spilled the beans or 5 or 50. No matter what Nelson says or whoever says they won't believe and they will demand more.
If you are going to claim that this is the soap scoop of the year you better have it in spades .... this story is dying! this is practically the only board even still talking about it! This is the only board demanding more. Most people have moved on from this story. ho hum!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


Steve Frame
Aug 3 2008, 09:15 AM
I am fully determined with some people that it wouldn't matter if it was 10 people who spilled the beans or 5 or 50. No matter what Nelson says or whoever says they won't believe and they will demand more.
Well, that's being very.. generalized about it. He was the one that hyped the story up to full blast. You don't say, basically, "Hey, this his the biggest, nastiest story of the year that Days can potentially never recover from."x100. He should have kept it low key, said Dena walked out and quit and there was a bigger story involved, but he is unable to say anything further until Monday.. and then let the information speak for itself in his next report. You don't hype something up to high heaven, deliver what he did, and then shoot the audience for getting their expectations up when he's the one that is at fault for it for hyping it the way he did.

And yes, it would matter. You don't do what he did and quote ONE source. He had a full weekend to call contacts on the set or in the WGA (if he has any of either) and add a variety of quotes that can help add some credibility and legitimacy to his story. As it was, it came off like a blind item with some details filled in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve Frame
Member Avatar


Edited out.

It is not even worth it anymore. The only thing that has come to mind all day with this whole story is constantly for me the Jack Nicholson quote about handling the truth from A Few Good Men.

I am going to wait and see before I make assumptions about this. Those that say it is one source and that no one but one source and a few people on here knew about this story just haven't been to other places on the internet. I know of at least 2 people at another board who do not post here and are very good sources heard about all this on the Friday before Nelson even broke the story.
Edited by Steve Frame, Aug 3 2008, 12:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Shylock


I think we're crossing wires. Probably a communication error on my end. I'm not trying to say there's one source, I'm trying to say that if there's more that he should have gotten an anonymous quote from them as well to add to the story to show there's more than just one person who has witnessed this in some form. And if he doesn't have another source, he should have probably gotten some.

But yeah, if there's anything bigger or just more I suspect it'll come out sooner rather than later. Hopefully.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
annalee003
Member Avatar


Days4Life
Aug 2 2008, 10:07 PM
Steve Frame,Aug 2 2008, 02:20 PM The people behind Days are not perfect - they are human just like all of us. They make mistakes - sometimes small ones and sometimes big ones. To those than can ignore it out of love for the show that is great
but it still doesn't make the wrong that they do go away.[/quote
I truly had no idea about all the scandal and goings on behind the scenes at DAYS over the years. I'm actually glad I didn't know all that at the time because I was able to simply enjoy the show and now that I know, it taints things a little bit. But I have to wonder--why hasn't someone written a soap within a soap TV series? That would be quite a drama.

Wasn't there a sitcom called SOAP that aired years ago?
Edited by annalee003, Aug 3 2008, 04:51 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Daytime News · Next Topic »
Add Reply