yes, i took off last night. a friend begged me to go to the movies with her. she's going through a break up and convinced that her girlfriend is correct and she'll never find any 1 else. so we went to the movies because she needed to get out of her place (formerly 'their place' - she kept the condo).
when i got home i thought about doing a post but i look around online while i've got the radio on and all i'm seeing and hearing is schiavo, schiavo, schiavo.
i wasn't in the mood.
the media circus rides continues.
a judge gives a verdict. the media pants. an appeal is filed. the media drools. and always non-stop talk.
talk talk
talk around the clock
as joni mitchell sings in 'tax free.'
did you ever hear such a choir?
oh sure you have some tenor voices. some baritone voices. some sopranos. some altos. a little bass thrown in for the mix.
but it's the same damn song - just different people singing their different parts (melody and counter-melody).
and it all makes this huge din that drowns out everything else.
as ani difranco sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same fucking song.'
correction: c.i. e-mailed asking what version of 'fuel' i was talking about. the 1 on little plastic castles. and i go to listen and ani sings 'and everywhere i go it's the same damn song.' my bad. 3-25-2005
that's the state of american media today.
and i mean all media -- the dinasours as well as the net age that was supposed to give us the brave net world that, more and more, sounds just like the weak old world.
who would've though the internet would obsess to the nth degree over the same topic as cokie roberts?
has cokie roberts suddenly become relevant? hardly.
what you are seeing is a media feeding frenzy (as c.i. noted yesterday at the common ills).
it's like nothing since o.j. simpson. i'm not sure even the laci/scott peterson story reached this level of saturation.
why has it been done to death?
for a number of reasons.
it's an emotional issue. so it gets attention. that means it delivers viewers, readers (for printed papers) and listeners. we always knew the dinasour media was all about the ratings. they'd go into a feeding frenzy on any topic that might pump up the ratings.
but in the not so brave net world, the 1 that was supposed to allow stories to break through that the mainstream was sitting on, we see the new enemy. the new nielsens are "hits." "visits."
every 1 seems to be chasing this easy to do, emotional story to get an increase in the hits.
there's something that needs to be said about the devices used to track visitors and i'll wait to address that another time. but make no mistake, the not so brave, not so new, net world is turning out to be as ratings driven as any 1 else.
a blogger i have never mentioned at this site who is male e-mailed me yesterday saying he was sick of blogging on this topic. (we've been e-mailing from time to time. he thinks i'm 'sassy and funny.') he goes to great lengths to tell me he's exhausted on this topic. then i see he's written about it again today. after sending that e-mail yesterday.
why do you write about something that you say you're exhausted on?
this is the o.j. case, people.
there is reporting. that was done early on. the only thing to discuss after that was the gop memo (which randi discussed friday on her show), that a court had a finding and what the decision was, and that an appeal is filed (because an appeal is always filed).
now if someone wants to go into ethics, that's a story. that's 1 story.
but this thing is being strip-mined repeatedly.
what can i write about?
that seems to be the question.
and the easiest thing to write about (or talk about or show clips of or whatever) is terry schiavo because it pushes buttons and gets attention.
and they keep going there and going there.
and no surprise, there's less and less to go to. which is why you hear bad jokes about terry schiavo on the radio. i heard 4 today. 1 on a left wing show, 1 on a right wing show, 1 on a sports radio show and 1 on morning drive.
there's nothing left. all the talking points (on both sides) have been done, redone, done to death.
and no 1 wants to credit. i heard people repeatedly cite bob somerby's revelation today. the 1 he made yesterday (the common ills highlights it in yesterday's post that i linked to above). every 1 is all over that a doctor is not a nobel nominee. i heard it over and over. and i didn't hear 1 person say, 'as bob somerby pointed out on the daily howler.' no 1 gave him credit. they just ripped him off and maybe they're listeners thought they had come across this thought. it came off like it was their own revelation. over and over, from show to show, web site to web site.
that's what it has come to. people no longer have any thing original to say. they know there's not a lot of work required in this story - you just push buttons -- and to add a factoid or 2, they rip off a bob somerby or some 1 else.
that's wrong.
and when you're going on and on about the ethics involved in this story, how ethical is it to rip off some 1 else's work and not give them credit?
i'd never read the daily howler before my friend elaine put me wise to the common ills. i'd never even heard of it or bob somerby. in the many months since i became a member of the common ills, i've seen his work highlighted. i've usually thought 'that's pretty astute' and sometimes i've been interested enough in what ever pull quote c.i. posted to click on the link and read somerby's writing in full.
if i ever use something he wrote knowingly, i will credit him. i say 'knowingly' because he's made a lot of points and i'm sure at some point (maybe already) i'll forget that he made it 1st. but come on people, there's allowing insight to seep in over time and there's ripping some 1 off less than a day later! no 1 can read yesterday's post and forget where they read it. that's insane.
people know they read it at the daily howler and they could give credit. but instead they pass it off as their own.
again, i ask, how ethical is that?
this isn't me reading his posts from the past that c.i. highlighted on president's day and a month or two from now making a point that i've absorbed so much i've forgotten that it wasn't mine to begin with. in 1 day (or less) how can you forget where you read it?
i don't think you do. i just think that you make a choice not to give credit.
and it's not ethical.
so spare us all the hand wringing and all the gotcha-points on some hypocrisy you're reporting on when you can't even cite where you got your nobel point.
the thing was a private matter. the courts have agreed with that. somehow people have pumped it into the story of the decade.
it bothers me.
and it worries me.
for 1 thing, what will poor michael jackson have to do now to get attention? he's already worn pajamas to court. does he have to show up nude now?
and forget jackson and the other infotainment stories, what about the very real, very serious stories that are going on right now?
we already saw the online community take a pass on the ohio hearing. we saw stephanie tubbs-jone be ignored. after all our talk of how we would support democrats who took a stand, we ignored what stephanie tubbs-jones did.
what else is going on? what other stories are we missing out on? and at what point will we all shut up about this story? people get the point. i was riding the ferry yesterday and every 1 gets the point. at this rate, if you continue to harp on this story, you'll create a fucking backlash.
and that should worry every 1 on the left. because america gets it. they get that this isn't about anything other than the republicans attempting to use a personal tragedy for political gain. but the excess in the left's response may end up creating a backlash.
if there's a development and you need to highlight it by all means do so. and credit whomever you got the point from. but this constant hand wringing needs to stop - especially now that 'jokes' are starting to creep in.
it's an easy story to do. that's why cokie and her ilk can cover it. it pushes emotions, pushes buttons, gets people talking. not because of anything most of the people covering it (in any format) have done. but because it's a natural hot-button issue. so people keep going back to that issue to get more and more. hoping to increase ratings, circulation or web traffic.
it is a personal tragedy and the coverage is starting to cross the line.
and people are starting to get bored. i love the majority report but sam seder is talking about this (again! again! again!) and i can't take it another night. i'll turn on the tv or go visit some friends. i do not need to hear this over and over.
yes, her parents are attempting to get press on this. but the courts have said the issue is decided. they have said that over and over. jebbie's stepping in. or trying to. if you want to cover that, cover that. but quit repeating the same things that we've heard all week over and over.
the left doesn't need an echo chamber. it needs people raising issues and stories that haven't been covered. and if you're contributing to the zone of silence on all other issues you are playing into the bully boy's hands.
i just went to buzzflash. it's a great site. it's the best thing the left has to offer and reaches so many readers each day. but it disturbs me to count 36 stories on terry schiavo in 1 form or another. 36 stories.
are there 36 stories there? no. there's a lot of hot air. there's a lot of repetition. and there's a lot more going on in the world then this personal tragedy.
i'm not trying for a buzzflash link here, in case any 1's wondering. if any 1 doubts that, watch this:
fuck, fuck, fuck.
christian parenti's cock is probably perfection. it is my dreams.
i bet dahr jamail really knows how to use the cock he's packing.
okay?
buzzflash link officially denied. so don't think i'm going for that or was attempting that.
i would prefer not to contribute in any way to the chorus that keeps signing the same tune with the right singing the melody and the left singing the counter melody.
and i promise i will not post on this subject again. but my point here is not schiavo, my point here is that there are other stories and that the attention being paid to this 1 story is overwhelming many other stories that are important and should be getting traction but won't as long as we keep hand wringing over this 1 story.
i don't know that karl rove is a genius. maybe we're just fucking idiots?
because this was designed as a ploy to feed the extreme evangical base and to take attention off other stories (tom delay, osama, etc.). if kar had a stroke of genius, it's because we were too fucking stupid to attempt moderation. we felt the need to flood the zone with this story and to go to it over and over to the point that we're hearing people say they're sick of the story.
oversaturated.
and the net was supposed to be our brave net world of freedom? seems to me like we all better think about shopping for pearls this weekend because a lot of us are turning into cokie roberts whether we intended or not. (i think most people shirk from the notion that they might some day turn into insta-expert cokie.)
you want some real news that you're not hearing about? get your ass over to ron's site. go to why are we back in iraq and learn about what he's covering. here's a hint, it doesn't involve a topic that the whole blog world is talking about. maybe that's why it's so goddamn important?
think about what you're learning from the news and commentaries lately and ask yourself how much longer this chorus needs to keep singing the same fucking song?
i've said my peace on this. and addressed it only because i agree with the common ills community members including wally who wrote me an e-mail this morning saying that his high school class was sick of it and was hoping some 1 else would say so besides c.i. wally lives in florida and if it's bad for me up north, i can only imagine how much worse it is for wally and the kids in his class.
so for wally and his class, i'll end with this item (put it with ron's and anything you find at the common ills and you've got a lively classroom discussion tomorrow):
Senate Foreign Relations Chair Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) scheduled hearings for April 7 on the confirmation of John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.
that's from ian williams' "bolton vs. united nations" which you can find online at in these times magazine. april 7th isn't that far way. so wally, read ian williams' article and bring that up in class. that's news and it's 1 of the many topics that we've lost sight of now that the choir only wants to sing 1 tune.
