American Politics Journal -- Pundit Pap

Pundit Pap
for Sunday, September 15th
Nothing New This Weak
by the Pundit Pap Team

Sept. 15, 2002 -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- The Imperial Shrubbery gave his partial backdown... er, make that highly anticipated speech to the UN on Thursday. Naturally, the pundit shows hosted two of His Fraudulence's top team players, the utterly clueless Condi Rice and the far smarter Colin Powell, to play the "We'll act alone" card this Sunday for their target (no pun intended) audience, the nefarious Saddam Hussein regime, hardly good guys by any measure.

Unfortunately, too many voices were chiming in with the word that makes Prince Georgie cringe in fear and loathing: "coalition." While we don't have the manpower to cover all of the Sunday shows, it's noteworthy that Sens. Carl Levin and Joe Biden repeatedly and forcefully got THAT last word in on CNN Late Edition, much to the apparent pleasure of Wolf Blitzer.

Here's what we saw:

ABC This Weak
Meet the new boss -- just the same as the old boss

Ding, dong, the witch is dead!

At last, smarmy moralist Cokie Boggs Roberts is gone from ABC's pathetic excuse for a Sunday political talk show. So is Shoutin' Sam Donaldson.

We didn't bother covering their final appearance as co-hosts of last week's This Weak for two reasons: the guest roster was a snore, and we didn't feel like suffering through what was sure to be gratuitous back-patting, toadying and general approval for the twin twits of Sunday punditry by a parade of reporters and guests.

The new host, for the most part, the sole inquisitor on This Weak, is George "Li'l Judas" Stephanopoulos, whose sellout, slanted "tell all" of his years working with Bill Clinton, All Too Human, showed that George "Staphylococcus" knows the dollar value of selling out confidences and engaging in the punditry of personal destruction.

He was rewarded for his attack on Clinton with a long-term contract with the conservative-dominated ABC News.

We advise any and all guests to watch their backs when appearing on the same set as Steph -- he makes Tim Russert look like Father Flanagan (even though Father Coughlin comes to mind more often than not when it comes to picturing the rotund Russert).

Sadly, in the revamp of This Weak, the ABC regime opted not to throw George Will out and toss his personal belongings out on the front lawn, as one spouse did when she learned Will was a cheating cad). We will continue to honor our pledge to ignore his petulance for the most part.

The good news: Michelle Martin joins the round table.

Steph's first guest: "Doctor Dilettante", the implausible Condi Rice. Condi gushed about "cooperation" between Pakistan and the US in the capture of top Al Qaeda player Ramsi bin Al Shibh, but was unable to confirm that Pakistan would turn him over (yeah, cooperation -- right, Condi). Steph juiced up a question about the arrest of five alleged Al Qaeda operatives near Buffalo with those magic paranoiac words: "dirty bomb." Condi gave a boilerplate "law enforcement doing its job blah blah" answer, gingerly sidestepping the question of what they were up to so as to let viewers' imaginations run wild with fear (smallpox? anthrax? radiological waste? McDonald's fries?).

Steph asked a reality-based question: what about other possible Al Qaeda cells? Law enforcement is working to "disrupt" cells, said Condi, in a remarkable statement of the obvious.

George then mentioned ginned-up "poll" numbers showing 68% of Americans now supposedly support military action against Iraq. Steph added that Iraq wants sanctions dropped. Condi scathed Saddam by saying he is acting as if he won Desert Storm -- there will be NO negotiation, she added emphatically. So are we going to war? Condi then tried to make the internationalist haters in the Smirk Regime sound as if they are coming to the rescue of a UN that has been thwarted by Iraq (talk about hypocrisy). So what is the timeline here? Six weeks? Condi would not play along, shifting gears to all that hard work Powell has done to consolidate support for action against Iraq (translation: God, we need to do this within six weeks or the Dems might take back the House and start investigating our sorry asses). Condi did admit that there will be some sort of ultimatum. What teeth does Condi want in a UN resolution? It's up to the Security Council, said Condi, adding there are other ways to deal with Iraq. (That's right -- Li'l Snippy wants his war! God told him so!)

Steph then played footage of Big Time Dick having said that inspections could provide "false comfort" -- in other words, there is no assurance that they guarantee Saddam is rid of WMDs. Condi insisted that whatever the White House wrecking crew decides to do has teeth. She specified a UN resolution putting the burden of proof on Iraq that it is not building WMDs on Saddam.

Steph mentioned the Carnegie Endowment concept of "coercive inspections" -- inspectors with thousands of armed escorts. Condi, for about the twelfth time, was nonspecific when asked what she thought about the idea.

Steph asked what war against Iraq would do to the broader "war on terrorism". Condi said we can conduct that war at the same time others are going on, citing law enforcement and "smaller operations". Steph retorted that Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Gen. Hugh Shelton have said an Iraq attack would stretch our military thin. Condi deflected the criticism altogether, citing technological and operational breakthroughs. (So? and they still won't be spread thin?)

Steph also asked about Daschle's question about who or what would theoretically replace Saddam -- and Condi did that ever-popular "bloody dictator" song and dance (she must've used the term four times) before admitting the situation would indeed be "fragile", her earlier claims of a "unified Iraq" to Steph already undermined by her admission that the situation would be unstable.

Steph then zinged Condi with this question: if we break with historic precedent and policy and engage in a first strike against Iraq, won't this prompt India to strike against Pakistan? Condi looked as if she was about to turn blue as she gave an emphatic "NO", attempting to support it with weakly-reasoned pap about feel-good peace efforts and international cooperation.

Then Steph introduced a new feature of This Weak: guest questioners! Oh, Lord. Another gimmick.

Steph welcomed an editor from a Kentucky newspaper, who after talking about visiting with family members of Fort Benning soldiers killed in the present conflict with Al Qaeda, put Condi on the spot with this question: "How can we stop the President from forcing us into Iraq?"

Ouch!

Condi praised the sacrifice of Kentucky soldiers and said that the Smirking Doofus will never send men into harm's way lightly, with plenty of paranoia-flogging "homeland protection" talk.

Of course, she did not answer the question.

Yessirree, we're going into year three of the West Wing Amateur Hour. God help this country when people like doctrinaire dunce Condi Rice are calling the shots.

After the break, Steph welcomed Tom Daschle -- who immediately said that Condi's comments about his concerns were "constructive" (translation: she knows she has a weak case and we'll try to get her to back down a little more).

Steph played footage of Smirk complaining about legislators having the nerve, by gum, to wait for the UN to map out a decision on how to handle the wily Saddam! Daschle pointed out the foolishness of Junior's petulance by reminding viewers (read: Karl Rove) that international cooperation is critical in the war on terror -- and we need to build a coalition again to take on Saddam. Daschle also said he is taking Condi at her word that a decision has not been made on taking on Iraq.

This is actually a cagey move on Daschle's part. If it comes out that plans were already in place, Daschle -- and the Dems -- can label the Misadministration as the liars many suspect they are.

Daschle also responded to a question from Steph by pointing out that Democrats are asking the hard questions -- and there are other hard questions, including unemployment and Smirk's "abysmal" economic policy. Daschle said there could be a resolution before Congress adjourns. Daschle said he expects a "broad consensus". Steph said Daschle is making a "broad call for bipartisanship" -- and Daschle agreed. Steph quizzed Daschle about working with Lot -- and Daschle gave a nonspecific answer.

Will Homeland Security be passed before Congress adjourns? Yes, said Daschle -- but he also said employees in the agency will have civil service protection, pointing to scandals involving "politicized" agencies.

Daschle also drew a line in the sand, essentially daring Smirk to veto a Homeland Security bill that protects employees.

Round table time! The big metaphor being bantered about the table was "The train has left the station" -- there will be some kind of action against Iraq.

Unfortunately, the current round table is about as "spontaneous and unrehearsed" as it was under Sam and Cokie -- the rhetoric train never left the station, and instead we got a slew of "wisdom" that sounded like crafted talking points for the hard right and mushy center.

Will blustered. We grabbed a coffee. Newsleak editor Fareed Zakaria thinks there will be a war with Iraq, and that a resolution by the UN will allow the appearance of a unified front against Iraq. Martin felt that Smirk's speech to the UN was "a triumph of rhetoric" in prodding the body to take action against Saddam. Will bored us with a false "League of Nations" analogy. Fareed seems to like the idea of intrusive inspections. Martin is wondering when; Fareed said that Smirk is boxed in by saying that if the UN does not act the US will. Talk turned to a "war on two fronts" (more like two wars now that Smirk has admitted the US has found no tangible ties between Saddam and Osama) and the cost.

Fareed made two great points. First, Iraq has oil and water and can likely pay for its own reconstruction once Saddam is given the ol' adios. Second, the House of Saud is likely to flood the market with oil once a war starts -- thereby taking one card, high petroleum prices, out of Saddam's hand. Will, in love with his own voice, tried to make some Democrat-bashing point. Martin said that the antiwar legislators she has talked to also feel the "train has left the station" -- naming Rep. Amo Houghton (R-NY), a seventy-something reluctant to send kids off to war. Fareed said that Houghton has a point. What should Dems do? Fareed said the Dems should support the Prez in getting the UN on board -- a broad (and vague) resolution -- then start pressing bread-and-butter issues.

Finally, talk turned to voting -- and the poor turnout in recent primaries. Martin says the jury is still out: disengaged voters? Boring candidates? Fareed said that if the election is about Iraq, the GOP might manage not to lose ground in Congress.

George Will had the last word, about the latest voting fiasco in Florida. It was typical, Democrat-bashing crap. You didn't miss anything.

Same goes for the retooled This Weak. It's as weak as ever. It would be far more interesting if they would jettison Will and the roundtable altogether, put Steph one-on-one with guests, and make him stop asking softball questions, for example that nice li'l zinger about India and first strike doctrine.

-- JJ Balzer

McLaugh-In

The party's over -- McLaugh-In is no longer running their "20th Anniversary logo".

And there is another development worthy of note -- Verizon is now co-sponsoring McLaugh-In with GE, at least here in New York!

Issue one: "The Gathering Storm!" said John McLaughlin -- in an attempt to make President Bunnypants look like Churchill? Talk about putting lipstick on a pig! John said Smirk laid out five demands on Saddam: destroy WMD's, let the UN supervise oil-for-food, ends support for terrorism, stop persecuting minorities, and accept responsibility for the Kuwait war.

Larry Kudlow, a bought'n'paid-for Smirk whore, naturally, gave the speech high marks and predicted that Congress will pass a supportive resolution in days.

Eleanor Clift, the token liberal, pointed out something pundits and the press have inexcusably ignored: Smirky did not mention weapons inspectors at all, and the core of the argument is the return of inspectors. She added that Smirk failed to make the case that Saddam is an immediate threat.

Tony "Best-dressed Fascist" Blankley, trying to sound like a humanitarian, made much of the Shrub's call for Saddam to lay off oppressing minorities, but said that Smirk could live without it -- and John agreed, adding that Smirk might turn his back on reparations to Kuwait.

Mort Zuckerman, editor of US News, argued that tyrants like Saddam and terror organizations are two side of the same coin (code for "those nasty Muslims"?).

More palaver followed: Eleanor predicted that China may abstain from a vote; John asked what it would take for Saddam to acquiesce to the demands -- answering his own question with the words "Vladimir Putin"; Larry the K said that the oil deal between Iraq and Russia may play into a broader plan of action (a carrot to Smirk's stick).

If Iraq won't comply, will the UN authorize force?
Larry: Through the Security Council.
Eleanor: It's a huge mistake if we go it alone (much yelling ensued).
Tony: Odds are "de minimus" of the US going alone -- the Security Council will authorize force.
Mort: Junior will get a resolution with all five points.
John: Putin will pressure Saddam -- but there's a 50-50 chance the Texas Twit will "go it alone."

Issue two: German realpolitik! John took a look at the present mess in Germany, which is in the midst of a heated political campaign for chancellor. Incumbent liberal Gerhard Schröder opposes a US war with Iraq and has threatened to withhold military forces even if the UN resolves to go to war. He is in a tight race, and John went political, saying a Schröder win would destroy relations between the US and Germany.

Eleanor pointed out that the German public backs Schröder, especially in the wake of the US snubbing the Kyoto Treaty, adding that the US needs European support to rebuild Iraq. John argued that other nations' citizens will follow leaders as they line up behind the Bogus POTUS. Larry called Schröder an "extremist", predicting that voters will line up behind Schröder's challenger. Is there a collision of national interests? Mort said that the conservative candidate seized on the Iraq issue to rally nationalists and hawks, and seemed skeptical that the approach would work.

Final prediction: Will Dems retain the Senate?
Larry: No.
Eleanor: Yes.
Tony: Yes.
John: Yes.
Mort seemed to be missing in action.

-- Dave "Doctor" Gonzo

CNN's Reprehensible Sources
Today's pretend press hand-wringing covers the question: Did the press get it right on September 11th, 2002?

The first anniversary of the "day that everything changed" (Gag!) brought us a non-stop, seemingly endless wallow in patriotism, grief, manufactured and forced solemnity, and breathtakingly idiotic and shallow pronouncements by TV whiz-kids. Gee, do you think it was too much? This was the topic for Howie and guests today.

Howie's little dog and pony show has long fit a set format. It goes something like this:

1: Pose a question or questions about whether the press messed up, over-reacted, is blatantly biased, behaved like a bunch of whores, is nothing more than an electronic version of, say, Jerry Springer or tabloid rag The Star. This is where they actually pretend to be concerned. The answers to all the questions are always a resounding yes, and a viewer might get their hopes up that maybe they'll hear real problems actually being admitted. But alas, it's not to be. Note that by framing the questions, Howie can frame the spin, such as asking in all seriousness, "Is the press being too hard on Bush?"

2: Howie and guests then spend the show defending the media and explaining why the criticism is not fair, or how, yes, the media went straight to the bottom of the barrel and behaved horribly -- but that's just fine and the way it is and there's nothing wrong with that. This is where it can get fascinating. The tortured lengths these goobers can go to in their attempts to justify everything the press does are sometimes mind-boggling. A common tactic is to argue that whoever got slimed or lied about in the media somehow brought it on themselves and should expect the press to lie and distort things. In other words, no one has a right to complain about press behavior or anything they do and no right to expect a higher standard of professionalism.

3: Howie ends the show with a witty (he thinks) editorial where he picks a few tidbits from the news where the media have made asses of themselves, and chortles and mocks the criticism, often blaming the victim.

In a nutshell, it goes like this:

"Did the press do anything wrong? No, it's clear that they didn't. Tune in next week, folks."

This goes on week after week after week.

It's become clear that rather than being what it purports to be, Reprehensible Sources is instead simply a vehicle to try to swat down any and all press criticism and vindicate the press.

The driving force behind this farce seems to be the "journalist" guests who strain mightily to maintain that they're "serious professionals" desperate to maintain the fiction that they are somehow serious deep thinkers and all the crap that passes for news is actually high minded and thought out.

This effort is, of course, doomed to failure, as the fact remains that the media is nothing but a corporate controlled, profit driven cesspool where they throw on whatever swill they think will attract 5 more viewers than the other channel, thus putting an extra $0.50 in their coffers.

Of course the mainstream "journalists" are victims of deep psychological denial, desperate to justify and rationalize being part of the complete collapse of responsible journalism. They realize that they're nothing more than crass shills, willingly doing or saying anything to keep their jobs and wring out one more dime of profit in an insane business. They're laboring in the middle of this sewer and trying desperately to cling to the notion that they're still honorable and high-minded professionals ala Edward R. Murrow, as they no doubt hoped to see themselves.

They just can't face the fact that they're living a lie. Howie's show is nothing more than a forum for them to try to maintain the fiction that the media has a shred of dignity or responsibility left.

Against this backdrop, the gang today reviewed the thoroughly icky September 11th anniversary coverage. Howie reviewed the coverage, accurately raising the just creepy fact that often, the anchors and hosts for the September 11th, 2002 pageant seemed to be intent on making the day more about them than the victims. There was the interviews with widows with babies, the crowd of media figures piled on top of one another at ground zero, the staged ceremonies, complete with making the victim's families wait around for hours so the Chimp could use them as props when he finally showed up.

And of course, there were the truly nauseating attempts by reporters to say something deep and meaningful.

Unfortunately, I was witness to one such abomination and now it's stuck in my head forever. It ranks as a fantastic example of just how cynical the press actually is. This one involves CNN's Stone Phillips wanna-be, Bill Hemmer. Billy obviously had been wracking his brain for something deep and meaningful to say as they went around to the various correspondents at the end of the day. This is what he came up with:

"One thing that we'll remember about today is the wind. It's been blowing very hard all day and almost blew us off our perches here. It's as if Heaven took a deep breath and was exhaling all over us." (Emphasis mine)

Well, he gets points for dragging in religion. But "exhaling all over us"????!!!! It's enough to make you bang your head on your desk repeatedly.

(Paula Zahn's comment that Junior is always brilliant when he's with "real people" ranks up there too.)

Howie usually invites guests that are dependably to the right and dependably defensive of the press. Lately though, he's invited one guest, Michael Wolf, who seems not to be afraid to buck the trend. Unfortunately, he's usually shouted down and ganged up on.

The other guests were Paul Farhi, writer for the Washington Post, Karen Tumulty, out-of-touch political correspondent for Time magazine, and former CNN flack Frank Sesno, the reliable press apologist who is now teaching Reliable Press Apology 101 at George Mason University.

Why are reporters seemingly unable to just SHUT UP and let us view somber and touching ceremonies, etc? This is a question I'm sure millions of people wonder, and it's beyond infuriating to have to listen to these anchors and their stupid prattle which obliterates the moment.

Sesno said that yes, maybe sometimes silence would be nice, but brushed it aside by saying that it "went against metabolism" -- an odd way of saying that anchors were incapable of shutting their mouths. He then went off on some canned remarks about how in our culture, we "super-size" everything, and therefore, we "to a certain extent" do the same to our coverage. Sesno thinks that almost 48 hours of saturation coverage on all networks is "to a certain extent"???

Kurtz pointed out a typical FOX moment and replayed the collapse of the towers and the moronic drone anchor said it was because they felt it was important to "remember why we're at war."

Thank you, Roger Ailes! I'm sure MANY people had COMPLETELY forgotten. UGH!

But beyond that, this was blatantly an attempt to bolster the DC Disaster's attempt to brainwash the nation into his profoundly misguided invasion of Iraq.

Farhi performed admirably, defending the coverage by simply saying that he didn't think the coverage was excessive in the least. He actually said that he thought the press showed "restraint", and that, "A day long, you know, wallow in it didn't strike me as too much."

What kind of person would ENJOY watching this crap for 24 hours? Well, now we know. One wonders what would have been "too much" for Farhi. Two solid days? A week? Hell, why not just create a 24-hour September 11th cable channel?

Howie said he'd talked to "dozens and dozens of people, journalists, civilians, ordinary folks" who said they weren't even going to turn on the TV on September 11th (read: 5 DC insiders at a cocktail party who probably were tied up that day anyeay) and asked Tumulty what she thought about that.

Tumulty, magnanimously, said, "There's nothing wrong with giving them that option." Whew! It's good to know people such as Tumulty and her ilk are still "giving" us the option to not watch TV if we don't want to!

She did make the most interesting comment of the day though, when she said, "We live in this era where people somehow believe you can just talk, and talk, and talk and finally reach something that you can call closure. And I think that this was a lot of -- this sort of national self-analysis going on..."

I agree. I think "closure" is one of the most over-used and abused and stupid psychobabble buzzwords around.

Simply put, there is no such thing as "closure", yet it's thrown around like confetti every time something traumatic happens to anyone.

And worse than that, it's now crept into use in situations that aren't the least bit traumatic such as, "Could you tell me when the package I sent you arrived so I can have closure?" (At least this is actual closure, so it's probably more accurate than the usual usage.)

And while talking about something is no doubt helpful, I think that when it reached the 82-mungogingdillion word mark within the first couple months after September 11th, that should have done the trick. Every single thought, notion, observation, and take on September 11th has long since been said, and said repeatedly.

Sesno: I completely agree that this coverage was important, that the event needs to be commemorated, that the country has to remember that our younger generations need to find a way to remember this, and they are all about a media culture.

Huh? I think people, young or not, don't need any help remembering the largest attack ever on US soil. If anything, they need help avoiding having it crammed down their throats constantly. So Sesno justifies it all by saying that it's for the younger generation that the media kindly does this kind of crap. You see, young people are all about a media culture so it's the ONLY way they'd ever remember September 11th. Brilliant, Frank.

This shows how far they'll scrape to justify themselves.

Now Michael Wolf spoke up and spoke the truth, and you know how that goes over with people that are in denial.

"Yes, but there's a big difference between remembering something and actually you might even say reinventing something. I mean, I'd like to challenge something before, which I actually think I've challenged on this show before, this notion that we're at war. We're at war only because the media has been telling us we're at war. But on a -- any other object -- by any other objective criteria we're not."

Amen, Brother Wolf!

Farhi piped up to opine that the saturation coverage was actually a "public service." Sure. We all know how altruistic the networks are. We believe you. It might not have been profitable, since there were few commercials, but the only reason for that is that no one wanted to advertise and they knew they'd get crucified if they ran any. The only reason they all did it, was that they knew they couldn't NOT do it.

I think the best way to deal with it all was to simply run a crawl at below regular programming listing all the victims, as some cable channels did. But the media is allergic to understatement.

To Farhi's assertion that the media was performing a public service by serving up the rituals that the public wanted, Wolf questioned that entire premise, asking, "How do you know they want to see this ritual take place?" and suggested that ratings showed that it is NOT what people wanted to see.

Sesno allowed that holding victims children in your lap was going a bit too far for "journalists." How dare he question a major tenet of TV? The "Your loved one was just horribly mangled and murdered. How do you feel about that?" microphone in the face moment?

Kurtz then plucked out two e-mails from opposite sides of the debate, one saying that they were sick to death of seeing the collapse over and over and over and that we've had it forced down our throats for a year now, enough. And another from some war fan saying that it wasn't about media, but about horrible people attacking innocent people, therefore we need to be shown it every day.

Yup. Must be a right-winger, because that argument makes no sense whatsoever. The fact that it's about horrible people attacking innocent people is exactly WHY most people don't want it in their faces constantly. WE GET IT, OK??? We've already been saturated in it to the point of being psychologically bent. But propaganda fans want things to be more Orwellian yet.

Tumulty used the bromide that people could avoid the coverage if they wanted to by switching to another channel. But then Howie brought up the fact that nearly EVERY channel was covering it in one way or another, even Bravo and A&E, but Farhi pointed out helpfully that one could escape it by watching the Cartoon Network.

That confused me for a moment, because surely FOX had full coverage too, but then I realized he was talking about another channel altogether.

Frank Sesno introduced the meat of the issue by saying that the question should be whether this sort of coverage stifles or crowds out legitimate and serious debate about the critical issues facing the country at this time.

Wolf said importantly that the issue was whether the flag waving and rubbing our noses in the grief and destruction was only serving as a giant pro-war, and hence pro-Smirk propaganda piece. As he put it, "Does this level of media coverage provide the mandate in effect for the president to go to war?"

Kurtz neatly sidestepped this issue; of course the most important one, and therefore the one that no one wants to touch.

He diverted Wolf onto the tack of whether the media exploits the families of victims.

To this Wolf spoke about how this is probably the most covered event of all events ever, and brought up the wallowing in sentimentality, saying, "The other interesting effect that this can have, of transitory sentiment. We do it. We see it. We go through this ritual thing, and then it's over, and in fact, what this whole exercise will be is an exercise in forgetting."

One can't help but almost hope he's right. Perhaps this event will fade to a more rational level with time. Maybe we won't feel the need to parade our collective memories and feelings in a grossly inflated and gaudy display.

Farhi and Wolf argued this point, with Farhi correctly saying that people will hardly forget September 11th. Wolf asserted that the media was "driving a stake through the heart" of September 11th and it's in the process of going away.

This prompted Farhi to take a shot at Wolf by saying something just stunningly ludicrous. "You know, it's very interesting how journalists are so uncomfortable with emotion. Viewers, readers are not uncomfortable with emotion ---"

Journalists "uncomfortable with emotion"?? This made me sit up in my chair. Thankfully, Wolf jumped on it and said, "What are you talking about we're uncomfortable with emotion? That's all we do! That's what television is about!!"

Sadly, that's about as true a statement as you'll hear on Reliably Defensive Sources.

Farhi responded, "And yet, you're sitting here criticizing the fact that the coverage was too emotional."

This is the kind of reasoning that pollutes and perverts discourse on TV. Farhi is trying to argue that, because Wolf recognizes that journalists thrive on, promote, and invent emotion, that therefore, he can't criticize coverage for being too emotional. That makes ZERO sense. Yet there it is. This crap happens constantly and is a favorite tactic of the right. If you're not on your toes, the twists and turns can easily throw you, and it actually seems to make sense. It doesn't.

Wolf correctly drew the distinction between emotion and phony emotion, which is what TV is saturated with.

Farhi and Sesno jumped in to the breach to defend the sainted media by saying that they didn't think there was any phony emotion in the coverage.

Despite their trying to shout him down, Wolf was able to get out that it WAS phony emotion for the simple fact that the media was SELLING it.

Damn right they sell it. That's why they thrive on it, and that's why someone as ghoulish and detestable as Connie Chung, et. al. exist. And that's exactly what makes all this emotion, real or not, so sickening and slimy. Because the media aggressively SELLS and MARKETS it to the public.

Then Sesno fought to get in what he thought was an all-telling story. About how his 15 year old son, after watching the coverage, broke down and cried, and how he said that his classmates at school were all talking about how depressing and moving it was.

"That's profoundly important, and that's what good journalism should do", Sesno reasoned.

Holy Cats! Good journalism should subject a kid to so much focused and endless cloying emotion and grief that he breaks down in tears, and good journalism should cause normally happy-go-lucky teens to sit around and talk about how depressing it all was, and thereby how depressed it made them? Wow. Way to go journalism! Job well done!

Then it was on to the sheer folly of the goofy color-coded "get real scared" alert system.

They all seemed to not like this asinine system at all, but mainly because it was just bad TV. What does the media tell people when Ridge and "AssCroft" come out and announce a new color? They can't tell them what the threat is, because even Ashcroft doesn't know, and they can't tell them what they should do or not do, because no one knows!

It's just ridiculous and a national embarrassment, and even the media don't like it because they can't use it to fill up airtime.

Tumulty thought it was just wonderful that politicians didn't try to get on TV on September 11th.

First, I saw several. Secondly, it's not because they're so sensitive and wonderful, but what network would put them on the air? They'd get slaughtered if they even attempted it! But Tumulty only sees something to admire.

Then came this exchange:

KURTZ: Would the country have been better, Frank Sesno, if the other day all the networks had done 16 hours on whether we should go to war with Iraq, what's involved, what the costs are, human, economic.
SESNO: No, not on 9/11. I think it was appropriate for there to be...
KURTZ: Next Wednesday.
SESNO: Yes.
KURTZ: But that's not going to happen.
SESNO: Well...
TUMULTY: Oh, there's been plenty of coverage of whether we should go to war with Iraq.

Well then, there you go. There's been plenty of coverage of whether we should go to war and sacrifice our economy, the blood of our sons and daughters, and potentially destabilize the world to the point of world war III.

We've talked enough about THAT.

Will the press fulfill its responsibility to inform and engage the public in debate over matters of crucial national and international importance?

I think Sesno said it best: "Well..."

--Dash Riprock

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.

Dave "Doctor" Gonzo is a maverick record producer. He lives in New York City.

Dash Riprock is a free-lance smart aleck based in Moline, IL He's NOT eager to get his war on. You can reach him at dashriprockapj@hotmail.com