Big Media and Tim Russert Coverage
WindNoSail
Posts: 580
I am going to get smeared for this...but I have a contrarian spirit when it comes to politics these days.
Ok, I respected Tim Russert...and I feel very bad for his dad (no one should have to bury a child) and for his wife and son. He by all accounts was a great person.
But, I respected him knowing full well that he was a journalist who was part of the national media regime we have in this country who in my opinion is not doing us much good. It seems to me that media and tech and entertainment have merged into one big conglomerate that for me personally it is really hard to tell what is real and what isn't anymore.
We could debate that Russert and others like him are doing some great service by exposing political and unethical actions by the Bush Administration, or maybe they are going to propel the next President-to-be Obama into the a winner in the GA, or maybe he was just a great ojective journalist and was needed to keep at bay all those so called objective journalists who actually are subjective and do have an agenda. Blah, blah.....but I wonder if we are so boxed in by our current state of hype for Presidential elections and 2 year cycle for control of Congress that we are not missing the bigger points. I mean what does the media really cover anymore other than political elections? They have been salivating for months about Clinton vs Obama. But that just seems to propogate more coverage with less real information, and then that of course supports the entire spin world via consultants, party hacks, fundraising, leaks, and rumor.
Maybe this is just ramble, but I have been watching this coverage tonight and it seems like the BIG media is saying that without Russert, who is going to carry the mantle in this great fight for media objectivity and for the common man against the tyranny of Bush. Is this self agrandisement? (sp?)
Corporate media is like 10 names, Brokaw, Keith O, Mathews, Schieffer, Williams, Stone P, etc and those people and the few around them have ALOT of power. And it would seem tonight, they apparently know how much power they have and are questioning who of those 10 is going to step up and finish the job so to speak. Its very strange, media self promotion regarding its influence and power against influence and power. Sort of like Goliath and Goliath.
Frankly, I don't want such few people having such large influence. They propogate the two party system, they want to choose your president for you, they spend wasted hours covering bs or just brainwashing via repitition (it works btw, billions are spent on advertising for the same reason), and are filled with ego maniacs. Maybe not Russert, but Keith O and his arch nymisus Bill O? Cmon, those two are crazy ego. Rush and Mathews??
So am I the only one who sees this coverage of Russert as a little strange? Not that he doesn't deserve the time, but the way it is being done strikes me as odd and causes me to be a little uneasy regarding what exactly do THEY (media) believe about themselves. Am I the only one worried about BIG MEDIA in the good ole USA?
Final thought - He is not an elected official, not a Pope, not Osama; his job is journalism, which is to me sort of like a teacher - you do the job honestly but you don't get massive attention for it. When journalism becomes the news, then news becomes entertainment and ratings.
Ok, I respected Tim Russert...and I feel very bad for his dad (no one should have to bury a child) and for his wife and son. He by all accounts was a great person.
But, I respected him knowing full well that he was a journalist who was part of the national media regime we have in this country who in my opinion is not doing us much good. It seems to me that media and tech and entertainment have merged into one big conglomerate that for me personally it is really hard to tell what is real and what isn't anymore.
We could debate that Russert and others like him are doing some great service by exposing political and unethical actions by the Bush Administration, or maybe they are going to propel the next President-to-be Obama into the a winner in the GA, or maybe he was just a great ojective journalist and was needed to keep at bay all those so called objective journalists who actually are subjective and do have an agenda. Blah, blah.....but I wonder if we are so boxed in by our current state of hype for Presidential elections and 2 year cycle for control of Congress that we are not missing the bigger points. I mean what does the media really cover anymore other than political elections? They have been salivating for months about Clinton vs Obama. But that just seems to propogate more coverage with less real information, and then that of course supports the entire spin world via consultants, party hacks, fundraising, leaks, and rumor.
Maybe this is just ramble, but I have been watching this coverage tonight and it seems like the BIG media is saying that without Russert, who is going to carry the mantle in this great fight for media objectivity and for the common man against the tyranny of Bush. Is this self agrandisement? (sp?)
Corporate media is like 10 names, Brokaw, Keith O, Mathews, Schieffer, Williams, Stone P, etc and those people and the few around them have ALOT of power. And it would seem tonight, they apparently know how much power they have and are questioning who of those 10 is going to step up and finish the job so to speak. Its very strange, media self promotion regarding its influence and power against influence and power. Sort of like Goliath and Goliath.
Frankly, I don't want such few people having such large influence. They propogate the two party system, they want to choose your president for you, they spend wasted hours covering bs or just brainwashing via repitition (it works btw, billions are spent on advertising for the same reason), and are filled with ego maniacs. Maybe not Russert, but Keith O and his arch nymisus Bill O? Cmon, those two are crazy ego. Rush and Mathews??
So am I the only one who sees this coverage of Russert as a little strange? Not that he doesn't deserve the time, but the way it is being done strikes me as odd and causes me to be a little uneasy regarding what exactly do THEY (media) believe about themselves. Am I the only one worried about BIG MEDIA in the good ole USA?
Final thought - He is not an elected official, not a Pope, not Osama; his job is journalism, which is to me sort of like a teacher - you do the job honestly but you don't get massive attention for it. When journalism becomes the news, then news becomes entertainment and ratings.
HOB 10.05.2005, E Rutherford 06.03.2006, The Gorge 07.22.2006, Lolla 08.05.2007, West Palm 06.11.2008, Tampa 06.12.2008, Columbia 06.16.2008, EV Memphis 06.20.2009, New Orleans 05.01.2010, Kansas City 05.03.2010
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6ucTsF6ldQ
he pleads the fifth...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")