Coverage of Senator Kennedy's Funeral

[Prais]

Scott said; Yes, Ted Kennedy did an awful thing 40 years ago, and even if he escaped criminal punishment for it, he paid the price for the rest of his life. There's not one obituary of the man that doesn't have Chappaquiddick as an early and important factor in his life.

Scott, with all due respect, WOW - a historic fact is in his obit. That's not exactly "punishment." Omitting that all together would get too much flack from some of us.

Must not have really been too (your word) "important" as he got away with MURDER! Now, that's (your word) CIVILITY."

I've been watching stuff on Biography this afternoon about the gangster Lucky Luciano. Though he "owned" lots of police, the Feds deported him for his racketeering.

I guess when you are "connected in the government" they let the murder go unpunished.

You or I, without his "name" couldn't get away with that, could we?

It's over. May God rest his soul.

 

[fybush]

Scott said; Yes, Ted Kennedy did an awful thing 40 years ago, and even if he escaped criminal punishment for it, he paid the price for the rest of his life. There's not one obituary of the man that doesn't have Chappaquiddick as an early and important factor in his life.

Scott, with all due respect, WOW - a historic fact is in his obit. That's not exactly "punishment." Omitting that all together would get too much flack from some of us.

Must not have really been too (your word) "important" as he got away with MURDER! Now, that's (your word) CIVILITY."

I've been watching stuff on Biography this afternoon about the gangster Lucky Luciano. Though he "owned" lots of police, the Feds deported him for his racketeering.

I guess when you are "connected in the government" they let the murder go unpunished.

You believe he "got away with murder," and apparently the headline you'd prefer to have awoken to on Friday morning would have read something like, "Killer Kennedy Escapes Scot-Free to Afterlife at 77" or somesuch. So be it.

It bears noting that no reputable media outlet - not even the New York Post or Fox News - played it that way...and if anyone has a right to bear a grudge against Ted Kennedy, it would surely be Rupert Murdoch, who battled fiercely with Kennedy over his ownership of newspaper/broadcast combinations in Boston and New York. Yet the Post obituary, which I'm looking at right now, refers to Chappaquiddick as "a black mark" on Kennedy's record, in a paragraph near the bottom.

The facts are that Kennedy's case was brought before a judge, who chose not to issue a warrant for his arrest, and before a grand jury, which chose not to indict.

The facts are also that Kennedy's employers, the people of Massachusetts, given the opportunity to vote Kennedy out of office the next year, chose not to do so - and went on to re-elect him six more times after that.

And furthermore, the facts are that Kennedy, despite the wealth and family connections he inherited and despite the political power he built on his own, was never able after Chappaquiddick to even win his own party's presidential nomination, much less to be elected president.

You or I, without his "name" couldn't get away with that, could we?

I'm glad you're so certain of that.

In my time as a TV reporter, I covered a lot of trials. The one I spent the most time on, and which remains most memorable a decade later, involved someone who could only be described as a "nobody" - no money in the family, no connections, no political power...just a lawyer who's one of the best in town. The guy even confessed at one point early in the investigation into the case, in which he was accused of murdering the husband of the woman with whom he had been having an affair. After two hung juries, he walked free, in a case where the evidence was (IMHO) far more clear-cut than that against Kennedy at Chappaquiddick.

Why is he a free man now, while the two daughters of the man he was accused of killing now have to grow up without a father? Certainly not because he had a "name" to get him out of trouble.

I'd suggest that life isn't always as black-and-white as some would make it out to be.

It's over. May God rest his soul.

It seems to me that many of us are quick to profess our belief in religions that preach redemption from sin...but far less quick to acknowledge the possibility of that redemption when there's political hay to be made.

I'm not big on organized religion, myself, nor am I much of a believer in an afterlife. I think we're judged ultimately by what we do when we're here on earth. And I think that Ted Kennedy worked very hard for much of his life, especially the last couple of decades, to do what he believed was right for his country and his constituents, especially those who lacked the "name" that he was born with.

Many of your neighbors - and pretty much everyone who ever worked with the man - seem to believe that work counted for something, maybe even enough to help outweigh what he did 40 years ago at Chappaquiddick. Is it not possible that they're seeing something you're not?

 

[TexasTom]

Scott,

Well said in both of your posts. The decline of civility in our society is certainly a huge problem -- and I find it ironic that once upon a time conservatives railed against the coarsening of society. Now, certain elements seem to wallow in it.

Regarding the whole claim that "Ted Kennedy got away with murder" -- the implication is that if he hadn't been a Kennedy, he would have been sent away to prison for life (or, at least, for a very, very long time) -- those folks don't have much of an understanding of how attitudes towards drunk driving have changed. Even today, someone who did what Ted Kennedy once did would be likely to be prosecuted for manslaughter and receive a very short sentence at most. But forty years ago, attitudes towards alcohol and drunk driving were very different than they are today. Back then, prosecuting someone for driving drunk (even with a horrific accident) was fairly rare because it was something that "everybody did". I'm certainly not defending it, but that's the way it was back then.

As for Ted Kennedy's legacy -- it is substantial, but for what he accomplished as a senator, and in the larger context as part of the Kennedy political dynasty. Yes, his drinking and womanizing were a disgrace through much of his life, but he did seem to finally get those demons under control in the latter part of his life. But, apparently for some, the Christian concepts of redemption and forgiveness only apply to their own political allies.

Finally, there is the old adage that if you don't have something good to say, sometimes it is best to say nothing at all. Funerals are one time when that adage is very appropriate. So for those who have nothing but negative things to say about Senator Kennedy, my suggestion is that you just be quiet and don't post anything on this topic for the next week or so. Afterwards, you can go back to parroting your usual talking points and attacking everyone and everything that doesn't buy into your political philosophy.

And trust me...that is a two way street. There are a couple of prominent conservatives who I will honor with a great deal of silence when their own times come.

(And, yeah, I know that I pretty much repeated a couple of Scott's points -- but, in this instance, perhaps reptition is a good thing.)

 

[imhomerjay]

The idea that the non-rich-and-famous don't sometimes walk away from far more compelling charges than those against Kennedy is absurd. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it is not the case, nor does it account for the many "famous" who do wind up behind bars. People believe what they choose to about that night, facts be damned, and that's all well and good. The great thing about conspiracy theories is, of course, everything tidbit that counts against them is simply chalked up to being yet another part of the conspiracy. The judge was bought off...well, we can't PROVE he wasn't right, so that means it must be so. The grand jury was intimidated or likewise bought off...again, we can't disprove a negative, ergo it must be because of his name that he got away with murder.

Civility is, indeed, on the endangered species list if it isn't yet extinct.

 

[Prais]

Kennedy - I'm noticing that (outside of Chicago) the exploits of the family that seem (to a native Midwesterner) "worshiped" in the East (just watch network news for a while) are loathed in the Midwest.

Scott, you certainly don't know "my neighbors." They talk about a Rush fan Club.

Tex (your words) "the old adage that if you don't have something good to say, sometimes it is best to say nothing at all."

Truthfully, If I hadn't been bowled over by the media making him a saint, and the sugar posted on radio-info, I wouldn't have written all this stuff to begin with. I have just as much right to my opinion as you do.

 

[fybush]

Kennedy - I'm noticing that (outside of Chicago) the exploits of the family that seem (to a native Midwesterner) "worshiped" in the East (just watch network news for a while) are loathed in the Midwest.

Scott, you certainly don't know "my neighbors." They talk about a Rush fan Club.

My wife grew up in Fort Wayne. My in-laws still live there. I'm just back from three weeks spent mostly in Indiana, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

There are certainly plenty of Rush fan club members there...but peel back that immediate layer of conformity, and I think you might be surprised to find out that the "loathing" of which you speak, while pervasive, is far from universal.

And for that matter, having lived and worked in Boston, I can tell you that the "worship" you're perceiving in the east is also far from universal. There have been several Boston talk hosts and newspaper columnists who've made good careers catering to those who don't like the Kennedys, and they've never lacked for an audience.

 

[Prais]

Scott,
I feel better, already.

 

[cspotrun]

first Michael Jackson, NOW Teddy Kennedy and "Wall To Grave" coverage. it looks like everybody who dies now will get some kind of "State Funeral" production. i'm not sure either one of them would want this kind of exploitation.

 

[dhett]

first Michael Jackson, NOW Teddy Kennedy and "Wall To Grave" coverage. it looks like everybody who dies now will get some kind of "State Funeral" production. i'm not sure either one of them would want this kind of exploitation.

Michael Jackson was gifted, but when you boil it all out, he was just an entertainer. Aside from the handful of charitable works he did, his accomplishments didn't really make a difference in many people's lives. The world is neither better nor worse for having learned to moonwalk.

Ted Kennedy, on the other hand, accomplished great things as a Senator. Agree or disagree with his politics (and I strenuously disagreed), he made a lasting difference in many lives. If anyone deserved "Wall To Grave" coverage, Senator Kennedy did. Michael Jackson didn't.

 

[imhomerjay]

first Michael Jackson, NOW Teddy Kennedy and "Wall To Grave" coverage. it looks like everybody who dies now will get some kind of "State Funeral" production. i'm not sure either one of them would want this kind of exploitation.

No, they just happened to die within a short timespan; not everyone (to use such a rediculously broad term) will have "state funerals." Long-serving senators? Probably. But few performers are in Jackson's league of popularity (I couldn't stand him, but understand there were millions who loved his work). A simple random twist of timing does not portend some imaginary trend.

 

[firepoint525]

first Michael Jackson, NOW Teddy Kennedy and "Wall To Grave" coverage. it looks like everybody who dies now will get some kind of "State Funeral" production. i'm not sure either one of them would want this kind of exploitation.

No, they just happened to die within a short timespan; not everyone (to use such a rediculously broad term) will have "state funerals." Long-serving senators? Probably. But few performers are in Jackson's league of popularity (I couldn't stand him, but understand there were millions who loved his work). A simple random twist of timing does not portend some imaginary trend.

Actually, it has happened before. See: Princess Diana and Mother Teresa.

 

[BRNout]

It used to be that we all shared basic standards of civility: for instance, when someone died, even if you didn't agree with what they stood for or how they lived their life, the civilized thing to do was to at least respect their accomplishments and, if you couldn't say anything nice at all, then to say nothing at all while those who cared and respected that person were mourning.

Those standards appear to have fallen by the wayside, and I think our civilization (if you can still call it that) is the worse for it.

Yes, Ted Kennedy did an awful thing 40 years ago, and even if he escaped criminal punishment for it, he paid the price for the rest of his life. There's not one obituary of the man that doesn't have Chappaquiddick as an early and important factor in his life.

You may not like what he spent the rest of his life and political career doing. You may believe that his actions, or his political views, or the accidents of heredity over which he had no control, all made him somehow ineligible for any hope of redemption for what he did. You may believe that after what happened at Chappaquiddick, he should have vanished from the public eye, or been locked up for the rest of his life, or whatever it is that you believe. It's a free country. You're welcome to that opinion. But I hope you'll at least pause from your sarcasm and your attempts at humor for a moment and consider all those people lined up along the route of his funeral procession yesterday. They're Americans, too, and they certainly seemed to believe that what Ted Kennedy did for them in the last 40 years of his life outweighed that awful deed that happened before many of them were even born.

Then consider what the more civil members of your own political faction had to say about the man. If you can get beyond your preconceptions long enough, listen to the remembrances Orrin Hatch and John McCain delivered Friday night, and see if perhaps somewhere in there you can find a shred of respect for all of the other things beyond Chappaquiddick that also contributed to the man Ted Kennedy was. Or read any of the very civil, respectful, and dare I say even admiring statements about Kennedy's passing that came from friends and colleagues of all political stripes. Even Sarah Palin had the grace and respect to put out a nice comment expressing her sympathies for the family.

Oh, and spare me the whole, "but the libs are going to go to town on Dubya when he dies" attempts at equivalency. Go back and look at what happened after the deaths of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yes, you can point to a handful of disrespectful columns and letters to the editor and such, because there's always somebody on either side who'll say something outrageous to get noticed. But I think you'll find the vast majority of those who disagreed with them still managed to rise to the occasion and respect their service to America - and that if they couldn't muster that, they at least kept their mouths shut and avoided acting like uncultured boors. I'm hard-pressed to remember any comments suggesting that a Ronald Reagan monument should be built in the form of a statue of Bonzo, or that Nixon should be honored with a plaque on a jimmied door at the Watergate.

I fear that we are losing the ability not only to respect, but even to attempt to understand, those with whom we disagree. That's not a healthy thing.

You know Scott, I have the greatest respect for you and your work. However, we disagree basically because I just watched a 4 day media orgy of adulation for a man with an extremely checkered history. A guy who was very shady in a number of ways. A guy who let a woman die when he could have saved her. A guy who, at 60 years of age, woke his underaged nephews from a sound sleep so that they could go and tie one on (resulting in a rape allegation) A guy who was tossed out of Harvard for cheating (he hired a guy to take an exam for him). A guy who played as dirty as possible when it came to maintaining his stranglehold on political power. Not one member of the media referred to Kennedy as "controversial" which he most certainly was.

Whether I am a liberal or conservative is immaterial here and I don't appreciate your assumptions on that (or you jumping right to that). You brought up Richard Nixon's death? Well, the media were very diligent about discussing the man's accomplishments AND his failings at length. As for Reagan, what was to debate really? Although I do recall him being referred to as "controversial" once or twice during the funeral coverage.

In the case of Teddy, they totally forgot that and left their objectivity at the door. By the way, what's the deal with a Cardinal presiding at his funeral when he's a well known philanderer and someone who's done more to promote abortion than anyone I can think of (a comment that does not necessarily belie my personal point of view on that subject - by the way). Someone who's divorced can't even take communion at mass, yet this guy gets a Cardinal and a Bishop presiding over his funeral? Yes, selective memory goes well beyond the media on this one!

Is it not civil to utter the truth anymore? Well then count me as blissfully uncivilzed because I will not sit by and watch a totally unbalanced and fictionalized review of Kennedy's life by the media. Basically my sarcasm was the product of seeing nothing but sugar-coated coverage which made no attempt to accurately assess his life. None. Hey, everyone else here is talking nice - so I elected to be the "bad guy" who mentions the herd of elephants in the room. Someone needed to provide the reality check.

I hope that we can agree to disagree here Scott.

 

[firepoint525]

I like what Chris Matthews had to say about Sen. Kennedy (and I don't even like Chris Matthews!): essentially that the people had decided that Kennedy could continue to serve as a senator, but not be elected president.

I think Kennedy basically had to at least try to run for president, just to show that he had moved past Chappaquiddick.

 

[DToTheJ]

FWIW, Chris Matthews also called Obama "the fourth Kennedy brother" - then Rush Limbaugh got flustered because he knew he would get hammered if he used the word "brother" when referring to him... etc.

By the way, a reminder: There's another funeral scheduled for this week - the aforementioned Michael Jackson - who, incidentally, was originally scheduled to be buried on his birthday... which was Saturday.

 

[BRNout]

FWIW, Chris Matthews also called Obama "the fourth Kennedy brother" - then Rush Limbaugh got flustered because he knew he would get hammered if he used the word "brother" when referring to him... etc.

Kennedy biographer Ed Klein, while being interviewed by Steve Malzberg in New York last week, opined that Matthews' comment made him "want to puke" because it's so untrue. Basically, his assertion was that Kennedy supported Obama because he resented the way that the Clintons moved the Democratic party toward the center. Essentially, Obama secured that support by promising to make health care a top priority. That was it - a political deal. No brotherhood involved.

Just goes to show what a joke Matthews has become.

 

[fybush]

You know Scott, I have the greatest respect for you and your work. However, we disagree basically because I just watched a 4 day media orgy of adulation for a man with an extremely checkered history. A guy who was very shady in a number of ways. A guy who let a woman die when he could have saved her. A guy who, at 60 years of age, woke his underaged nephews from a sound sleep so that they could go and tie one on (resulting in a rape allegation) A guy who was tossed out of Harvard for cheating (he hired a guy to take an exam for him). A guy who played as dirty as possible when it came to maintaining his stranglehold on political power. Not one member of the media referred to Kennedy as "controversial" which he most certainly was.

Not one? Not one? Really?

Here's Maureen Callahan in yesterday's New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0830200...ists/kennedys_free_pass_with_women_187139.htm
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/in...lies=33;sesc=bf4ff63cfbdcc0f8b5b2af93b7e7cda7

How about Nick Gillespie in Reason?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135658.html

Maybe Reason's too far to the right for you. How about Edge, Boston's gay and lesbian newspaper?

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=95702

Insufficiently mainstream? Here's the Orlando Sentinel, in a Sunday column analyzing the coverage of Kennedy's death:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...h-ted-kennedy-coverage-wait-theres-more-.html

That's just what came up on a very quick Google News search for "Ted Kennedy"+controversial. Then there's all the TV coverage, like the Larry King special that was repeating last night on CNN while I was waiting for more news about the LA fires. I wasn't timing it out, but at least the last ten minutes of the show was nothing but Chappaquiddick, and hardly an "orgy of adulation."

Whether I am a liberal or conservative is immaterial here and I don't appreciate your assumptions on that (or you jumping right to that). You brought up Richard Nixon's death? Well, the media were very diligent about discussing the man's accomplishments AND his failings at length. As for Reagan, what was to debate really? Although I do recall him being referred to as "controversial" once or twice during the funeral coverage.

In the case of Teddy, they totally forgot that and left their objectivity at the door. By the way, what's the deal with a Cardinal presiding at his funeral when he's a well known philanderer and someone who's done more to promote abortion than anyone I can think of (a comment that does not necessarily belie my personal point of view on that subject - by the way). Someone who's divorced can't even take communion at mass, yet this guy gets a Cardinal and a Bishop presiding over his funeral? Yes, selective memory goes well beyond the media on this one!

Is it not civil to utter the truth anymore? Well then count me as blissfully uncivilzed because I will not sit by and watch a totally unbalanced and fictionalized review of Kennedy's life by the media. Basically my sarcasm was the product of seeing nothing but sugar-coated coverage which made no attempt to accurately assess his life. None. Hey, everyone else here is talking nice - so I elected to be the "bad guy" who mentions the herd of elephants in the room. Someone needed to provide the reality check.

I hope that we can agree to disagree here Scott.

I think we can obviously disagree, and do, about what balance to apply to Kennedy's accomplishments in the Senate against his, yes, controversial personal life.

But I also think it's possible to have an honest conversation about that balance, and about the media's coverage of that balance, without resorting to the fallacy of absolutes.

It's entirely possible, as Hal Boedeker's Orlando Sentinel column linked above points out, that in retrospect, the initial wave of Kennedy coverage paid insufficient attention to Chappaquiddick and Kennedy's other failings in his personal life.

It is simply ridiculous, and factually insupportable, to claim that the coverage was "nothing but sugar-coated," or that "there was no attempt to accurately assess his life." Perhaps there wasn't enough of that angle to suit your tastes. We can argue that. Perhaps the coverage did indeed tilt too far to the hagiographic. We can argue that point, too - and believe me, that debate is already underway in a lot of journalistic circles. But if you truly believe that you saw, as you claim, no coverage whatsoever of Kennedy's personal failings...well, I don't know what you were watching or listening to or reading all week, but it must not have been the same news I was looking at, and I was looking at a lot of news last week.

 

[vchimpanzee]

Two movies I saw over the weekend are relevant to this topic.

One probably shouldn't have been shown so soon after Kennedy's death. "The Contender" starts with a Chappaquiddick type incident. Except the governor, who was in no way responsible for the accident, tries to save the woman. When he comes up for air, it's too late to save her. The President needed to replace a Vice President who had died, and this man was his first choice, but people were only going to see that Chappaquiddick type incident. Yes, that word was used several times in the movie. So he went with another candidate, a woman with an alleged sexual incident in her past. A very good movie.

The other movie was "Flightplan". I haven't read the rest of the thread, but the funeral coverage ran long. It was too dark to see, so fortunately for those of us who wanted to see the movie, ABC left. If the movie had really been edited this way, it would have been really good. No, there was probably some useful background information we missed in the East, but this was really good. Jodie Foster was one of the designers of an airplane that she was on. A really BIG airplane. The first thing I saw was her 6-year-old daughter in a really eerie setting. I thought maybe this was going to be a "Sixth Sense" type movie. But it wasn't. Jodie went all over the plane looking for the girl. At one point people were acting like she was paranoid. Finally, they found out the girl had died along with the woman's husband, and she was so overcome with grief she was delusional. With the background information--which might not have been helpful anyway since some movies show you what a delusional person believes, not what is real--we might have figured out what was going on. But this would be an interesting way to do it. Charles Gibson just hated to leave, but it couldn't be helped. It was too dark to see. But the timing was perfect. I do want to see the rest one of these days.

 

[vchimpanzee]

I was absolutely stunned to turn on at 5:30 my time (Eastern)
and find only one broadcast network (NBC) airing coverage of
Sen. Kennedy's burial; ABC had the Little League World Series,
CBS had golf, Fox had the Mets-Cubs game. ABC, on the other
hand, did stay on past 7 (and since I get the New York and LA
o&os, except for Fox LA, I think this was deliberate; Tom Brokaw
handed off NBC's coverage to MSNBC at 7).

My NBC station had "Jeopardy" as usual. I didn't think anything about it until I turned on "Flightplan" and it wasn't on.

 

[BRNout]

Not one? Not one? Really?

Here's Maureen Callahan in yesterday's New York Post:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/0830200...ists/kennedys_free_pass_with_women_187139.htm
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/in...lies=33;sesc=bf4ff63cfbdcc0f8b5b2af93b7e7cda7

How about Nick Gillespie in Reason?

http://www.reason.com/news/show/135658.html

Maybe Reason's too far to the right for you. How about Edge, Boston's gay and lesbian newspaper?

http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=95702 

Insufficiently mainstream? Here's the Orlando Sentinel, in a Sunday column analyzing the coverage of Kennedy's death:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/en...h-ted-kennedy-coverage-wait-theres-more-.html

That's just what came up on a very quick Google News search for "Ted Kennedy"+controversial. Then there's all the TV coverage, like the Larry King special that was repeating last night on CNN while I was waiting for more news about the LA fires. I wasn't timing it out, but at least the last ten minutes of the show was nothing but Chappaquiddick, and hardly an "orgy of adulation."

I should have been more specific in my complaint, as I was referring to the mass media (i.e. major TV/cable news nets).  They were very complimentary of Kennedy and loth to discuss his many peccadilloes.  Sure, using Google you can find pretty much any opinion you're looking for.  However, in watching coverage on the likes of ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, it was very soft on Kennedy and treated the event as if a great president had passed away.  Even Fox News stayed away from Chappaquiddick.  Not that Chappy was his only bad deed; he racked up quite a record of poor personal decisions.

And no, none of the major anchors ever referred to him as controversial.  When a Republican dies, that word is usually in the first or second sentence of the piece. 

I think we can obviously disagree, and do, about what balance to apply to Kennedy's accomplishments in the Senate against his, yes, controversial personal life.

But I also think it's possible to have an honest conversation about that balance, and about the media's coverage of that balance, without resorting to the fallacy of absolutes.

It's entirely possible, as Hal Boedeker's Orlando Sentinel column linked above points out, that in retrospect, the initial wave of Kennedy coverage paid insufficient attention to Chappaquiddick and Kennedy's other failings in his personal life.

It is simply ridiculous, and factually insupportable, to claim that the coverage was "nothing but sugar-coated," or that "there was no attempt to accurately assess his life." Perhaps there wasn't enough of that angle to suit your tastes. We can argue that. Perhaps the coverage did indeed tilt too far to the hagiographic. We can argue that point, too - and believe me, that debate is already underway in a lot of journalistic circles. But if you truly believe that you saw, as you claim, no coverage whatsoever of Kennedy's personal failings...well, I don't know what you were watching or listening to or reading all week, but it must not have been the same news I was looking at, and I was looking at a lot of news last week.

Au contraire, there was very little balance over the past few days - at least not in the mass media.  At times, many very famous members of the media acted as if they lost a family loved-one.  Very little objectivity was weighed in the major coverage.  In fact, it was hardly covered in any sort of an impartial manner by the major media.  Sure, you can cite newspaper columns (particularly from some of the more conservative papers); but it's more difficult to find any sort of a solid discussion on the front pages of those papers or in the major network coverage on television.  The latter is very important as that's where most people now get their news coverage. 

And, the fact is, a lot of us didn't care for the man's politics or his actions.  Which is where my original comment comes in.  Had it been the loss of Massachusetts' junior senator, rather than senior, no such comment would have been made.  Now, I don't happen to care for Senator Kerry's politics any more than that of Ted Kennedy.  However, John Kerry's behavior never approaches the misdeeds of Ted Kennedy.  If you studied what happened to MJK, then you know she died of asphyxiation rather than drowning.  The man likely stood by and heard her screams.  Yet he was thinking only of himself when he ran back to Edgartown and came up with a cover story.  Yeah, it was a long time ago - but it's bad enough that he really shouldn't have been allowed to serve as Senator.  And, his later alcohol-fueled behaviors just reinforce the questionable nature of the choices that he has made as a person.  We all know it - even the politically liberal Matt Groening chose TK as the inspiration for the corrupt, drunken, womanizing Mayor Quimby.  So it's not as if my comments are based on some whackjob conspiracy heresay.  His pattern of behavior was well known and is well documented.

No, unless I tune to a partisan program (such as Howie Carr in Boston), very little is being said about this mixed legacy.  Hence my complaint and comment.

 

[imhomerjay]

Ah,the old "it's not mass media unless it suits my argument" standard. Major dailies aren't mass media...unless they're so-called liberal. 24-hour talk radio isn't mass media unless it's Air America....and on and on. It's amusing to listen to the Rush-es et al complain about "mainstream" media when they dominate, by far, the dialogue on the radio. That's all well and good, but to pretend that they somehow don't have a platform? Please. Intellectual dishonesty at its best.

Carving out an artificial definition that changes to meet the whims of a particular moment in time is laughable. I know what I watched on the "mass media" over the past week, and though I didn't keep a notebook handy to copy each and every word verbatim, I know quite well the truth is that his checkered past was discussed--not ignored--on multiple occassions, including Saturday.

It appears the only definition of "objectivity" that would pass muster in this case is to call him Satan personified and to rejoice at his passing. Solemnity now equates with praise in some sectors.