Just One Big Game
While the pure souls in the press are worrying themselves sick over Jack Abramoff scandal, it's worth noting that there are plenty of close, cozy back-scratching relationships among the punditeratti.
Prime example? Tim Russert's friendly interview with James Carville, coyly alluding to a new project of Carville's, which turns out to be an XM sports radio show with none other than . . . Luke Russert, Tim's son! Note that the relationship was never disclosed to the viewing audience.
I don't agree with Arianna Huffington on many subjects, but for the most part, she's dead on right here.
Prime example? Tim Russert's friendly interview with James Carville, coyly alluding to a new project of Carville's, which turns out to be an XM sports radio show with none other than . . . Luke Russert, Tim's son! Note that the relationship was never disclosed to the viewing audience.
I don't agree with Arianna Huffington on many subjects, but for the most part, she's dead on right here.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:34 AM
4 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sadly, none of this is news to me. I have two stories -- one "when I was a boy" (but bear with me anyway) and another much more recent and pertinent.
When I was in history class (8th-9th grade, thereabouts) we were always told to know why such-and-so was important. Civil War? Industrial revolution? Dates and names are fine/dandy (and required) but we need to know why they were important. OH I hated it. But I grudgingly did have to admit, that was fair.
Could anything on MTP (or others of these shows) pass this test? I constantly ask myself re-Carville, "Why is this important?" For that matter, why was Kobe's fate remotely important? Or Scott Peterson's? Nobody even bothers to answer (or even ask) the questions.
The other tale involves a prominent area columnist. I work in software development and have become a kind of go-to guy for computer issues on this/that. I also correspond with this pundit here/there, and whenever this pundit needs computer help of some sort, I help out.
One day, this person was writing on something having nothing to do with computers, but rather a certain emerging and controversial national story. This pundit asked me my opinion on it; I explained it. I found my name and words in the paper a couple of days later. No mention was made that I had known the pundit for some time.
My words were with my permission and in context. However, I was kind of quoted as a "random man on the street" thing when we both knew it wasn't. Was that wrong? Perhaps. Would I have been quoted if my opinion were different or if I had mixed feelings? Dunno. I haven't lost sleep over it.
But what I have discerned and have figured only moreso over time is that such hidden relationships are everywhere.
As a broken clock is right twice a day, not all hidden relationships are bad in the telling of a story. But we're back to my first question:
Why is such-so story important? Specifically, why is Carville's opinion on anything important?
HouseOfSin asked, "Specifically, why is Carville's opinion on anything important?"
Because Carville is heapum big pundit. Lord forbid anyone in the "news" business would actually go out and gather some news when it's easier to just ask your pre-approved pals.
It's the same reason anybody cares about Victoria Toensing or Ann Coulter or Paul Begala or ...
Pete wrote, "'heapum big pundit?' you making fun of our Native Americans, twisted?"
No, I'm making fun of Carville, and the crappy state of affairs that talking to Carville is considered "news."
As for the rest of your post, I am sorry that you failed reading comprehension in first or second grade.
Post a Comment
<< Home