Nonstop coverage of Tim Russert while....

Afghanistan is going to hell for one thing, and what else?

I think Mr Russert's death is a great loss, but you have to ask yourself why is it that we're closing in on 24 hours of straight coverage of his death (of purportedly natural causes) on ALL the major 24-hour news stations, not just the one he worked for, when there is so much else going on? They're elevating him to the status of...hell, a world leader or something.

This seems totally out of proportion while there's so much else going on that they are virtually ignoring. For heaven's sake, they've barely even mentioned Obama since Russert died. This is just...very, very odd. Almost like a total news blackout. There's something they don't want us focusing on...

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

I don't think you fully grasp the level of respect this man had among his peers. Jesse Jackson said it best....."Losing Tim was like the Sun eclisping at high noon, you just don't expect it and it leaves you disoriented.

Remember.....People have been watching Russert for years. It would almost be like losing a family member without warning. This was relatively unexpected so this type of reaction is expected.

Oh I grasp it. And I had a great deal of respect for him myself. He was one of the greats. But they are all but canonizing him...nonstop, covering nothing else.

However, having said that, I stand by my statement. This post is not about him. It's about their bizarre ways of focusing the collection national and world attention the media is doing more and more of. And the possible reasons for it.

This coverage is way over the top. But then again, over the top is the only mode they seem capable of operating in anymore. For six months there's been virutally nothing but nonstop coverage from all of them of McClintBama. It's disfunctional, and there's probably method to the madness at some level.

P.S. I find your tone and assumptions condescending and your grasp of the subtleties of what I actually said here and what the actual topic is (diversion of our attention) lacking. Maybe the use of a current event distracted you, but I would think that you would be more careful to assess and maybe more fair-handed in your comments and keep your own emotions and judgement of me and my knowledge and intent out of it, particularly posting under the name of a moderator here.

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

Just do not watch, the news, that way you will never see it.

Originally posted by andy1033
Just do not watch, the news, that way you will never see it.

Thanks for that ummm advice. I watch and read everything, both mainstream and nonmainstream, because it's the only way to even get close to the truth about what's really going on in the world and its geopolitics. And sometimes what they're not covering is a bigger clue as to what's important than what they're covering. And sometimes over-the-top coverage is a cloak.

But then again, very, very little of what they do is true journalism anyway.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity

P.S. I find your tone and assumptions condescending and your grasp of the subtleties of what I actually said here and what the actual topic is (diversion of our attention) lacking.

I am aware of what you are trying to say...I just think you are wrong.

Maybe the use of a current event distracted you, but I would think that you would be more careful to assess and maybe more fair-handed in your comments and keep your own emotions and judgement of me and my knowledge and intent out of it

Fair handed??? You mean agree with you and not have an opinion of my own? Not really seeing your logic here?

particularly posting under the name of a moderator here.

That is because I AM a moderator here but I am a member first and I will post as one. I'm not sure where you hostility is coming from but all I am doing here is posting an opinion, I will chalk up your sensitivity to being new here and not take it personally, but c'mon man chill out. If you are looking for a place where you can come and post and everyone will agree with you than you have come to the wrong place.

kleverone

ATS Member/Moderator

At least this diversion is actually the death of a well-respected newsman, whether you agreed with him or not, instead of that of a drugged-out Playboy bunny or wall to wall coverage of a nutty pop star shaving her head. Those wonderful, informative tales are the very thing that started my disillusion with cable tv news.

Recent developments finally cured me of my sick addiction to cable news and I no longer watch that drivel. I promise you breaking the 24/7 cable news habit was the single best thing I've ever done for my sanity.

Good luck, OP.

RIP Tim Russert. I wish I could say I'll miss you, but I'd be lying.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Afghanistan is going to hell for one thing, and what else?

Afghanistan is not really on the ol' scope for major events right now. I thought the USA mainstream media had fairly well kicked into flood and bad weather coverage with politics taking a close second.

Russert's death, while is a tragic moment for his family and friends, seems a little over the top. He was a national celebrity, but you don't see this much coverage for an actor or popular radio host.

We'll see what type of coverage comes back on Monday.

Originally posted by hinky
He was a national celebrity, but you don't see this much coverage for an actor or popular radio host.

We'll see what type of coverage comes back on Monday.

What we must remember here is that this man was a journalist who worked closely alot of the people in this industry. It is only natural to cover it extensively, especially MSNBC. How cold would they look if they posted a passing segment?

And actually you do see this much coverage for celebs but it is covered on places like E and the Variety and People magazine. I was living in Hollywood when Heath Ledger died and that was all you heard about for a week! Lets not forget that the man died YESTERDAY! If they are still covering this story all day on Monday the I would cry foul.

Also keep in mind the happened on Fathers day weekend and Tim was known for being a great dad, there is a tragedy here that is widespread among his peers, this is exactly what I would expect.

reply to post by kleverone


no, kleverone, you missed the main point of the post. the subject here isn't tim russert, it's the overreaction and overcoverage in the media of this, like so many other stories.

and on that personal note, i don't care a wit if you agree with me or not. in fact, i don't even notice that sort of thing.

the fair-handed comment was that i was thinking that as a mod (i guess i mistakenly assign to mods a higher expectation of logic in my mind) you might sure be more sure about what the actual point is before going off on a tangent. got it now though...member first


[edit on 14-6-2008 by ~Lucidity]

reply to post by Seeker Mom

yes, you're right. at least. much better than the usual drivel, including the ad nauseum, repetative, overblown election nonsense.

i will continue keeping an eye on all sources, because, again, i think it's the only way the picture becomes clearer.

Originally posted by Seeker Mom
At least this diversion is actually the death of a well-respected newsman, whether you agreed with him or not, instead of that of a drugged-out Playboy bunny or wall to wall coverage of a nutty pop star shaving her head. Those wonderful, informative tales are the very thing that started my disillusion with cable tv news.

Truuuue, which is why this is so gross. You would expect cable news to latch onto a random celebrity and bleed their spirit dry to hide what's actually happening. And it's just scary when it happens, because it's an example of the media making a cultural sacrifice. But it's not tragic because they're just celebrities, and their death is just one more thing to exploit.

It's tragic with Mr. Russert because he was a journalist. That a journalist's death would be used to do something any true journalist would fight tooth and nail against is an extreme discredit to the service he provided.

Originally posted by hinky

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Afghanistan is going to hell for one thing, and what else?

Afghanistan is not really on the ol' scope for major events right now.

Yeah...that was kind of my point. It should be. Taliban on the loose, coalition deaths higher than in Iraq.

reply to post by ~Lucidity
i totally agree this is unusual coverage and I smell "Wag the Dog" senerio insofar as keeping us focus while something else is going on in other parts of the nation and the world.

I agree with th OP too much coverage on Tim Russert all over the place. With major prison break an the most action in afgan region and termoil in Pakeystand because of judges taken away people protesting in Pakeystand us blowing up Pakeystand troops in an air strike and god knows what else their not telling us ( space shuttle falling apart and landing today) . I'm a bit over 50 years old and watch Tim Russert on mmeet the press once and a while ..but also others...The last thing I remember about Tim Russert that really stands out is asking Dennis Kucinich if he really has seen a UFO and Obama also while hosting debate.

He was a good news man, but ...well I think his death was covered a bit much and could have been given an hour special on each network at an anounced time for those who want to see more...

Sadly ever since... I guess it was Princess Diana's death the media has jumped on non-stop coverage of events. They did it down here last year with the Va. Tech shootings.

The only one that was warranted was 9/11 but even with that a week was too much.

Tim Russert is a big big loss for a variety of reasons but for my money he was like Walter Cronkite.... an honest journalist... not two words you put together all that often anymore.

... he asked hard questions and didn't put up with fluff and spin. Would that the American people would learn from that.

reply to post by musselwhite

it might not be afghanistan...that's one thing that is happening they may not want us to notice. bush thinking about converting to roman catholicism is odd, especially after blair did so too at the end of his term in office. all the earthquakes lately (cyclical or not) are weird. iran flairing up again.

it's like they just LOOK for something to focus us on...the election, which just about everyone knows doesn't matter a bit, whatever celeb scandal is brewing, as seeker mom said...

oh well. as long as we know it...

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by kleverone

 

no, kleverone, you missed the main point of the post. the subject here isn't tim russert, it's the overreaction and overcoverage in the media of this, like so many other stories.

I did not miss the main point, I think that your assumption of overcoverage and overreaction is wrong, I believe it is all merited and that nobody is overreacting Bottomline. What you need to be able to comphrehend that I understand what you are saying...I just think that you are WAY OFF.

(unless i mistakenly assign to mods a higher expectation of logic in my mind)

You would be wrong to ever make assumptions on anything without have prior knowledge of said assumption. I pride myself on my logic, just because you can't comphehend what I am saying doesn't negate the validity of it. So...one more time. I disagree with you!!!! I think the coverage is merited. NO CONSPRIRACY HERE! If they are still making this big a deal of it Monday, fine I will come back here and applaud you 15 times, although I have a hunch I am correct of this one.

sure be more sure about what the actual point is before going off on a tangent. but i could be wrong.

Once again, I did not miss your point. I disagree with you. If you can't see that, it's your problem not mine. Sorry for the confusion and tone that you may miscontrue as condescending but without the inflections in my voice to show you I am not trying to be an ass, you will just have to take my word for. I am merely disagreeing with you, that is all. Let's agree to disaree.

Anything more than 5 minutes an hour spent on Russert is just wasting everyones' time and overshadowing actual important news.

So yet another Washington insider died. *Yawn*

You can always gauge how important a person was in maintaining the status quo by how long his death is publicly mourned by those in power. If he had been a journalist who actually investigated and questioned the policies, profits, and perversions of the people in power, maybe they would have a different view on his passing. I am sure Larry King will be mourned like a passed messiah.

Power quietly celebrates a journalist's passing but a propagandist's passing is loudly mourned.

Jon

DIET: SPEELING.

[edit on 6.14.2008 by Voxel]