Category Archives: Journalism

Navel-Gazing Nation?

America, Journalism, Media, The Zeitgeist

The coverage of Tim Russert’s untimely death is obscene. Can you imagine the BBC lamenting for days on end the passing of one of their broadcasters, or even the head of the BBC network? Never. It would not happen. You’d hear a curt, solemn announcement to the effect that, “Our colleague has passed away tragically. We mourn his death and extend our condolences to his family. Now to the news of the day.”

This pathological coverage, once again, is of a piece with the childish, self-centered, deeply silly American media, which knows not what its proper mandate is. Has such impropriety afflicted the national psyche? You tell me. I suspect most Americans are preoccupied with other matters. I hope so.

Mature, normal people know when to grieve, how publically, how loudly, and how long. When the president of the US pauses, on an official visit abroad, to declare to the world how sad he is about the death of a man his audience doesn’t know—you know what a naval-gazing nation we’ve become.

This kind of coverage applies with spades to the elections: Since 2007, cable networks have focused exclusively on the elections to the exclusion of most other new and certainly world news.

As I asked in “Elections Fatigue”: “America’s pathological, election-time self-absorption makes a mockery of the idea that the US is suited to lead the world. Shouldn’t a world leader take an interest in the world?”

I suspect that Mr. Russert would have been appalled by the choice of broadcasting his colleagues have made.

Update II: Tim Russert Dead At 58

Journalism, Media

When a relatively young–presumably healthy–person like Mr. Russert dies suddenly, it is a reminder of one’s own mortality.

Tim Russert seemed a genial, if unremarkable, gentleman, which is more than one can say about most other media personalities.

Update I: I must say I was never able to detect the telltales of an interesting mind in Mr. Russert, but as his friends eulogize him, I will say this: He was objective and I never made out his political preferences or biases.

In the arid journalistic landscape of today perhaps that is in itself remarkable.

I find the instant eulogizing media has launched into a little distasteful. It’s too soon, too loud, and too self-referential—each personality making sure his relationship vis-à-vis Russert is front-and-center.

The man is not yet in the ground. Some quiet grief seems in order–a time to ration speech for a change.

Update II: Russert did prepare extremely well for all his interviews. Again, that’s rare in journalism nowadays. He was also a devout Catholic and devoted father and son. What’s not to admire about that?

Here’s what I find ironic: Keith Olbermann has been leading the tribute to Tim on MSNBC. Although there are aspects of Olbermann’s show that are appreciated—his coverage of the war and the demise of civil liberties under Bush—”Countdown” is pure advocacy, not journalism. I read recently, moreover, that Russert was deeply disturbed about this development—the turn against journalistic objectivity MSNBC had taken with “Countdown.” If this is the case, how does letting the Obamacentric Olbermann lead the network’s extolment honor Russert and his mission?

‘Colorectal Crusader’ Couric Cries Foul

Ethics, General, Hillary Clinton, Journalism, Media

What never fails to amaze me about the anointed Idiocracy of America (Peggy Noonan comes to mind here) is that, no matter how evil and erroneous their way, they always get curtain calls; they retain their status as philosopher-kings. Or queens.

Colonic Crusader” Katie Couric said this at an award ceremony for her cherished self:

“However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I’ve ever seen.”

[Note the grating “I feel” locution]

Rewind to February this year:

Sly Katie recently interviewed Clinton while intoxicated—drunk with love for Obama. Couric’s below-the-belt barbs and blithe probes about Obama—but not the issues—made Hillary appear elevated by comparison. The Senator was courteous where Katie was cruel.

‘Someone told me your nickname in school was Miss Frigidaire. Is that true?’ Couric asked. ‘Only with some boys,’ Clinton said, laughing

The answer was quick, and, I must confess, classy. The question was base and bitchy. (It’s of a piece with another iconic ‘journalist’s’ cruelty—that of Barbara Walters. She prefaced an interview with Celine Dion by pronouncing: ‘you are not beautiful.’ Tears welled in Dion’s beautiful eyes.)

Excerpted from my “Militant Mama Obama.”

Update II: Mindless Monolith: Media Pick Obama

Barack Obama, Democrats, Elections 2008, Intellectualism, Journalism, Media

“I suspect most media cheered for Obama reflexively, rather than consciously—too stupid to ask themselves whether what they were doing was journalism or advocacy. A couple of older news guys, ABC’s Charles Gibson comes to mind, failed to take sides. Consequently, the pack pounced on him and on George Stephanopoulos for asking the senator some pointed questions. But good newsmen are a dying breed. Good newswomen are mostly dead already. By the time she died, the brilliant and brave Oriana Fallaci had long since been buried professionally by mediocrities like Barbara Walters of the ‘cutting edge’ anti-aging reportage and colonic crusader Katie Couric.”

“So how did a mindless monolith’s hunger for Hussein help the Obama momentum?”

Find out by reading “Mindless Monolith: Media Pick Obama.” The column leads the WND Commentary Page today.

Update I: A friend, who’s no fan of Katie Couric, thought my description of her as a “colonic crusader” should be patented. Fun aside, to be a “good” newsman today means taking up a disease and fighting against it. The triumph of sentimentality over reason. Couric’s thing is colon cancer, an awful illness, indubitably, but, consider Fallaci who’d been blown-up covering many a revolution–she never so much as discussed the breast cancer that killed her. I suspect that given the kind of mind she had, it didn’t much interest her. I too switch off most newscasts when they start on the kiddies, cures, and critters crap. Part of the takeover by women.

Update II (June 7): In reply to the reader from Lewrocwell.com, who asserts that I have singled out “comrade” Obama for criticism for some reason he simply cannot fathom:

I too cannot quite understand why readers assert baselessly, rather than argue based on facts. The reader has clearly not read “Ilana’s” scathing commentary on the other candidates. It’s on this site, for those willing to do a wee search—two mouse clicks away really.

Of course, it’s also a no-brainer that the most prominent candidate—the frontrunner—would garner more commentary than the rest. Is it not? Perhaps not to all. Genghis Bush got my undivided attention in years past.

Here’s some of the commentary Mr. Allen “missed”:

“The Hillary, Hussein, McCain Axis of Evil”

“Mitt’s Gone; Bill’s Back”

“Axis of Economic Idiocy”

“Lexicon Of Lies”

“Busybody Hillary’s Bhutto Blather”

And more; practically every column of mine, here’s another example, is peppered with derogatory comments about the candidates and their positions, or lack thereof, as applied to the issues discussed in the column. I guess people see what they want to see.

A different perspective on my rather matter-of-fact narration of the media’s crowning of Obama comes from a rather independent-minded gentlemen I’ve come to know—he happens to be Sean Hannity’s producer, although as much as he often likes what I have to say has not succeeded in getting me on the program:

“This is your typical iconoclastic clarity – some people fight PC, you remind me more of some Buffy who stakes it through the heart and then cuts its head off on the backslash.”