• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Coverage of Senator Kennedy's Funeral

DToTheJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
There actually were four Kennedy brothers: Joe, jr., John, Robert, and Teddy. (I'm not sure how "Edward"'s nickname got to be "Ted" or "Teddy." "Ted"/"Teddy" is usually short for "Theodore.")
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.
Click to expand...
Michael Jackson has already had one "funeral." He really doesn't need another one.
 
"Ted" can be a nickname for "Edward"; Ted Mack (of "Ted Mack's
Amateur Hour" fame) was born William Edward Maguinness; he
changed it when he became a bandleader because "Ted Mack"
fitted better on a marquee.

John Kennedy liked to be called "Jack," and Robert Kennedy
preferred "Bob" to "Bobby."
 
It was a four day orgy of deification. There have been many long serving senators pass on and none got this treatment. Robert Byrd of West Virginia surpasses Kennedy in seniority and power and is in very poor health and when he passes you will not see this level of coverage and he's a Democrat. After this weekend, I would not be surprised to see cameras at the grave site Tuesday morning (the third day after burial) to see the empty grave.
 
Rick, right on with one small correction.

You said, "I would not be surprised to see cameras at the grave site Tuesday morning (the third day after burial) to see the empty grave.

I believe you mean to say, "IF the grave is empty."

It won't be.
 
ricksegers said:
It was a four day orgy of deification. There have been many long serving senators pass on and none got this treatment. Robert Byrd of West Virginia surpasses Kennedy in seniority and power and is in very poor health and when he passes you will not see this level of coverage and he's a Democrat. After this weekend, I would not be surprised to see cameras at the grave site Tuesday morning (the third day after burial) to see the empty grave.
Click to expand...

And just like the networks forgot about Chappaquiddick, they'll forget about Byrd's association with the KKK.
 
One of the abilities of a cable news network is to allow around-the-clock coverage of such events like the passing of Michael Jackson and Edward Kennedy.

As I've always said; if people don't want to watch, there are numerous other channels on cable television.

As for Kennedy's past; that's for a higher authority to judge than me.
 
imhomerjay said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again, individual commentaries in local newspaper columns or partisan blogs are not mass media. NBC, ABC, CBS, and the cable networks ARE mass media. Yes, I suppose one could call the Rush Limbaugh Show an example of mass media - but Rush doesn't try to pass himself off as an impartial reporter of news. Brian Williams, Katie Couric and the rest DO masquerade as "impartial" for the uninformed and under educated among us. There's a big difference.

While a certain selection of people in New York may read columns in the Post, and another localized group read the Orlando Sentinel, those publications barely have the fraction of the impact that 4 days of wall to wall televised coverage on the big 3 and cable networks have. So, if you would actually take a reasoned look at what I wrote - as opposed to a knee-jerk attack - I think you can agree that "mainstream" is defined as the kind of source that reaches millions of people. And the sources cited by Scott don't really reach that level. I wasn't "picking and choosing" - just being realistic with regard to where people obtain information. My earlier mistake was to broad-brush all "media" as opposed to calling out the national news sources (particularly TV networks). Mr. Fybush caught me on that one and I do stand corrected.

One mass media source that hasn't been cited or attacked in this thread is Fox News. Interesting - why would that be? Perhaps because they were not any more critical of Sen. Kennedy's life than anyone else. At one point, they actually chided the public because they received so many "what about Chappaquiddick emails" which was interesting.

Also, kudos to ricksegers for correctly pointing out that the attention that Kennedy received will not be repeated for any other sitting senator (nor has it been in the past).
 
Not everyone in a particular group, let's say sitting senators, will always be viewed the same way and will generate the same level of interest. Some by virtue (no pun intended) of their actions in and outside of the job, accidents of birth and other factors simply are more in the public eye. To pretend that each member of a particular defined group is identical to the others is silliness.

If national broadcasters and national cable networks are mass media, then certainly talk radio hosts with hundreds of affiliates and millions of listerners are mass media. That they're not "objective" observers isn't the point; they're mass, and they're most certainly in the media. However, the talk show hosts have no problems frequently holding up individual newspaper articles and editorials as examples of the mass media against which they rail day in and day out. Which is it? Either individual, market-specific news outlets ARE mass media or they aren't. They aren't mass media sometimes--i.e., when they run a piece to the left--and not others--when they run something deemed to the right.
 
How many networks carried Sen. Kennedy's funeral? I heard that the number of networks that carried Michael Jackson's memorial service was 18. I'm curious if more (or fewer) networks carried Teddy's funeral than carried MJ's. Of course, some networks that carried Jackson's funeral (like MTV and VH-1, for example) might not consider Ted's funeral of interest to their viewers. But I believe others, like PBS, might have carried Kennedy's funeral after not having carried Jackson's.
 
imhomerjay said:
Not everyone in a particular group, let's say sitting senators, will always be viewed the same way and will generate the same level of interest. Some by virtue (no pun intended) of their actions in and outside of the job, accidents of birth and other factors simply are more in the public eye. To pretend that each member of a particular defined group is identical to the others is silliness.

If national broadcasters and national cable networks are mass media, then certainly talk radio hosts with hundreds of affiliates and millions of listerners are mass media. That they're not "objective" observers isn't the point; they're mass, and they're most certainly in the media. However, the talk show hosts have no problems frequently holding up individual newspaper articles and editorials as examples of the mass media against which they rail day in and day out. Which is it? Either individual, market-specific news outlets ARE mass media or they aren't. They aren't mass media sometimes--i.e., when they run a piece to the left--and not others--when they run something deemed to the right.
Click to expand...

Well homerjay, there's definitely a difference between the news departments at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc. and an entertainment program such as Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Randi Rhodes, Countdown with Keith Olbermann, etc. It's the difference between marketing yourself as a journalist reporting "news" (which can shape opinion in the process) and someone who makes a show from commenting on the news. Both may be mass, but the reporting was done by the former group and not the latter. When the first group wanders into the land of opinion by allowing personal and/or institutional biases to shape the way in which they approach stories - then yes I have a problem with it.

You know that's what I meant and you are clearly intelligent enough to understand my complaint, yet we continue to argue over semantics. There's no reason for it.

If any shows blur the line between the two aforementioned groups, those would be The Colbert Report and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. An awful lot of Gen Y types think that these guys are actually reporting the news - verbatim. Don't believe me? Ask some.
 
Some "generation Y" types may well belive that, though I know plenty who know that (a) what they're seeing is satire and (b) even as satire, it's balanced and contains actual facts beneath the jokes. That some viewers fail to recognize what is obvious about the nature of the shows isn't the fault of the shows for "blurring" the line.

So can one legitimately ask what the "correct" balance would have been for the Kennedy coverage? Mentioning "controversy" once per segment? Twice an hour? Every other word? Seriously, what would be enough? For as much as you claim a blanket knowledge that it wasn't mentioned, I, and those who watched what I did, know full well it was.
 
imhomerjay said:
Some "generation Y" types may well belive that, though I know plenty who know that (a) what they're seeing is satire and (b) even as satire, it's balanced and contains actual facts beneath the jokes. That some viewers fail to recognize what is obvious about the nature of the shows isn't the fault of the shows for "blurring" the line.

So can one legitimately ask what the "correct" balance would have been for the Kennedy coverage? Mentioning "controversy" once per segment? Twice an hour? Every other word? Seriously, what would be enough? For as much as you claim a blanket knowledge that it wasn't mentioned, I, and those who watched what I did, know full well it was.
Click to expand...

At least noting that he was "controversial" would have been a start. Let's put it this way: when Jesse Helms was buried, the word controversial became his title as it was always placed before the word "senator." Not that I'm advocating that level of hype, but the omission of the word from pretty much all of the TV coverage tells you where the writers of news script lie on the political scale.

Somehow the mainstream media feels that any political figure on the right is "controversial" while politicians on the left never are. Interesting how that works.

To sum up, the whole event was over-covered and overly complimentary. Just ask people in LA if they agree with me; coverage of the fire emergency was abbreviated in order to make room for TK's funeral. Why? He wasn't their senator.
 
Yet more broad, inaccurate generalizations. Kennedy was described as controversial in the coverage. Pretending it wasn't doesn't change actual reality (as distinguished from the pseudo reality where the gerrymandered scope of the "mass media" is somehow all liberal all the time because they don't worship at the feet of whatever the RNC and Rush decree).

The California stations, like all stations, can not take a special report if they so desire under those kinds of circumstances. But of course, that's nothing more than a straw man argument, anyway.
 
Whoops, posted in the wrong thread. Apologies.

- Trip
 
Agree ixnay, that was a thoughtful and very intriguing article. Clearly it was penned a couple of years ago because it referred to the right running both houses of congress and having the presidency. I wonder how the author would approach the subject now. Thanks for passing it along.
 
So, Card's solution is that the moderates in each camp should scorn the extremists in said camps. Uh, doesn't he accuse the extremists of using scorn rather than engagement with the purpose of silencing those who don't agree with them? The solution isn't quite as easy as he represents it to be, either.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom