A great read, CBFC, and on target. I've really loved this at the end: "Somehow, we have to have a higher voice, not a vindicitve, mean spirited, joyless, loveless ignorant voice, but a hopeful sympathetic, smart, vigiliant and strong one. But we are not going to find it inside concentric debates with the already infected." This isn't the news coverage we grew up with. As for the talking heads, man, do I miss David Brinkley! Keep D&D Civil.
The news coverage you grew up with was basically a monopoly. In that setting, Dan Rather easily gets away with the faked memos in 2004 because there is no one watching the watchdogs.
I wasn't growing up in 2004, silly, and Rather would never have, "gotten away," with anything back in the day, either. Rather was/is a damn fine reporter. I've been following him since he essentially began with his career covering Hurricane Carla, from Galveston. With all due respect, you seem pretty full of paranoia, gwayneco. We had three network news organizations, because we basically had 3 networks. The news coverage back in the day was far superior to what we see now, in every respect but technology, and technology is far overused today. The sets of the Daily Show and Colbert Report are dead ringers for the farcical sets we see today on the TV. They are making fun of all the cable news outlets, both CNN and Fox, who deserve every bit of it. I'd like to see less flash, and more news. A lot more. Keep D&D Civil.
Jeff Gannon also used "Divorced From Reality" in that press conference, that is where it really peaked. He was, incedentally, quoting Rush Limbaugh quoting something Harry Reid never said. I am married to reality, Rush and O Reilly are my bridesmaids. I think that one post earlier about o reilly going against the grain (to the tune of a #1 rating, a zillion viewers a night and a full line of merchandise) was being facetious. But thanks for pointing that out - that is part of the myth; "we are being repressed!!!" Good lord, with the supreme court, house, senate and presidency - that side is being repressed. Real niche, i get it.
I must say, you are the last person on this forum that I thought would have the signature that you do (Mathnawi by Rumi). Maybe you do not hate Muslims and brown people after all.
I can understand why would you have thought that. What I hate is Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism, or whatever you want to call it. If I hated darker skinned people I would not want more of them to immigrate to the USA. I also supported what we did in Kosovo/Bosnia on behalf of Muslims. I also view Iraq and Aghanistan as efforts to help Muslims as well, though I know others differ on that.
Wow. I actually think we share the same view. I too hate the use of terror and fundamentalism. These are acts unbecoming of Islam and Muslims. The actions of a few give the whole a bad name, and I think that is sad and unfortunate.
Have you seen Good Night and Good Luck, Deckard? The movie lionizes Edward R. Murrow and it has George Clooney, but it had a great message about the mass media as it was then and is now. It'll have to take another visionary reporter to break news into a fashion where it makes the public patient and interested as well as comprehensively inform. We aren't there yet. Ever since the remote control, our attention has been declining and the distractions rising.
Replace "Olbermann" with "Fox News" and replace "O'Reilly" with "New York Times." Fox News is just as insecure about their short tenure and lack of global credibility (which will matter a hell of a lot more once current news events are recorded into history), hence the New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN bashing. By either media figure, it's just self-promotion very thinly disguised as political philosophy. For what it's worth, I actually side with O'Reilly on this one, only because I don't feel comfortable criticizing someone about forgetting the details of an historical event I don't know anything about. I did't see that West Point-educated general O'Reilly was debating correcting him either (even though he did broadly defend GIs actions in WWII, saying he wasn't aware of any war crimes violations by them). I'm a little suspicious of the WWII expertise of a Sportscenter anchor, kind of makes his assault on O'Reilly a little suspect in my opinion, as one had the disadvantage of speaking on the fly in the midst of a debate, and the other probably had the benefit of time and the research of their MSNBC news editors.
