Is An Impeachment Resolution Newsworthy?

I had work to do today but had Fox TV on all day, as promised. I listened to at least two hours of news. During that time, I heard multiple repeats of Breaking News: a manhunt for an escaped convict in Florida, the landing of the Space Shuttle, and again, the Heather Mills' diatribe against her ex-husband and Beatle, Paul McCartney - oh, and Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani for President.

As my post mentioned yesterday, the fact that Dennis Kucinich made a first step toward seeking to impeach a sitting Vice-President was not mentioned as it was happening on C-Span yesterday. Nor was it addressed today, during the two hours that I listened to the Fox Cable News Channel. I was intrigued that the only time that the resolution was announced, apparently, was when the Republicans strategized [very deftly] not to table the resolution, but to vote on it instead with the goal of putting Democrats on the hot seat to debate the resolution. Apparently, the Fox media did speak to Representative Conyers, chair of the Judiciary Committee, who would be reviewing the motion, and who voiced his initial thoughts that it was not a good idea. How is it that the resolution wasn't newsworthy but "what happened" to the resolution was newsworthy?

Again, whether it was a ploy by Kucinich to bring attention to his campaign or not, his maneuver on the floor as a member of the House was historical and groundbreaking - but the television news media didn't address it until hours later. What was the delay? Cop chases are instantaneous and even the term, "Breaking News" has actually lost its significance, they interrupt broadcasts so much. I'm sure C-Span doesn't have a monopoly on airing Congressional sessions.

The parliamentary debate was intriguing, as it appeared that the Acting House Speaker or President, as he/she is named --was a mustachioed gentleman with a hearing problem when it comes to registering voice votes from his podium (somebody check the acoustics of that room) -- didn't know what to do. The vote was on the floor of the House. In my opinion, this was as important as the quandary that the country was in after the elections in 2000: procedural and parliamentary mayhem. I mean, how many impeachments have been brought against the highest office-holders of the Executive Branch? Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And how was it that the very Democratic party to which Dennis Kucinich belongs was voting against him and the Republicans for the motion?

Not newsworthy. Nyet. Niente. Nada. No mention today while I was tuned in, and barely any yesterday. Today's Wall Street journal's first page had short paragraphs on what we could find inside--there was mention of the Mukasey nomination for Attorney General; House and Senate negotiations on weapons systems; and the House override of President Bush's veto of a water bill. I was skimming, but nothing jumped out at me. Impeachment. No big deal. Allegations of lies that have killed thousands of American citizens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Human beings now dead because of the alleged mastermind machinations of a demonic Vice-President? Whether real or not, despite the vilification -- once a matter goes to the House, it should be considered a serious matter. If the impeachment issues came up on the talk shows, which is probable, because then its "opinion news," I didn't see it. But it could have aired and will stand corrected if they did air it, tucked away during a time period when no one would be watching.

I grew up when TASS (the central news agency of the Soviet Union when it was the USSR ) was government-controlled and the acronym was synonymous with government propaganda. Are we there now? Or is it as Spiro Agnew named it, the "the unelected elite" have deigned to dictate what the American public should and should not know? Marital breakups, yes; but deception of the American people - no. Far be it from me to have anything in common with Richard M. Nixon, but was his estimation of the television media, "the Silent Majority," prescient, and something about which we need to be more vigilant?

But my question would still remain -- where is the media when you need them? Sitting in their trailers, getting their make-up reapplied? Or asleep at the switch? Or intentionally absent because they were told to be otherwise occupied, under order by the powers that be to say nothing?

ShutUpMedia? Hmmm. This is one time when I wish they hadn't. I may have to think of a new Blog Name...

Sphere: Related Content

Media Talks Babies and Petty Crime While Dennis Kucinich Offers Impeachment Resolution

Again, the media is asleep at the switch. Congressman Dennis Kucinich is on C-Span offering HR Resolution 333 seeking the impeachment of Vice-President Dick Cheney. He lists the facts that prove that the VP deceived the country about the links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and alleges that he lied on national television that Iraq was developing nuclear capabilities. He listed Cheney's different visits to the media, namely Meet the Press, the venues used by the VP to distort the truth.

I switched to the other news channels -- which no doubt have feeds -- to see whether they saw this resolution as breaking news. Let's see, I'll switch channels now: Headline News is airing the life of a quadriplegic; CNN covered the writers' strike, MSNBC is talking about the environment; and Fox News is covering commercials and football. Let's see who considers this breaking news. I'm waiting.... waiting.... waiting..... nothing yet. Dennis is still speaking on the floor.

Fox is talking about Heather McCartney's plight against her former-Beatle husband.

No breaking news. Which is why they are useless in giving the news. This is newsworthy -- but not popular. Even mentioning the issue without seeking a live feed shows their bias. Or their writers are on strike so they can't write that fast. Journalism 101, anyone?

This is one time where their ShuttingUp--really worked - to not reveal breaking news.

Sphere: Related Content

I have not watched the news -- and I'm getting work done.

Interestingly enough, my commitment to watch Fox News has had a different effect than I would have anticipated. I didn't watch it at all yesterday. I just couldn't. I've been brainwashed by the punditocracy that it's all rubbish and right-leaning. Well, I have been afraid of watching Fox. But for about one hour yesterday, I did turn it on, and I thought it was actually okay. They had a round-table discussion where people weren't yelling at one another, and you could actually follow the dialogue. I'm shocked. I did find that the local Fox News Channel (Channel 25) is pretty good, but I'm not one for local news, actually.

So, I'm going to step out of the shadows and try watching it later today. But it's been blessedly quiet and I've accomplished a lot, not listening to the news. This blog might disappear any day now, as I've figured out the solution. Don't watch the news. At all!!

Sphere: Related Content

FOX : How I'd rather be eaten by one than Watch it on Cable

Think of going to a restaurant and wanting to know the day's specials, which are no where in writing at your lunch haunt. Instead of taking your order, the waiter begins talking for 10 minutes about the different things that are on the written menu (which you can read yourself), and he comments about hat he likes and doesn't like, etc. Meanwhile, your stomach is growling and you want the guy to shut up and tell you what the specials are, so you can decide and take your frigging order and get it to the chef. Will you just tell me what the specials are or I'm not going to tip you!!&$&$*$#(@(@)@* arrgggh!

That's how I feel about Fox. I just want the news, but it never reaches my ears
because it's prefaced with parenthetical comments on the peccadilloes of the newscaster -- SHUTUP and give me the news. I might be exaggerating, but it's true. I think the station is probably best at highlighting breaking news, in general, but its regular news is a lesson in tedium and patience.

But it's a popular Cable Channel. I guess it works for those who like to be told how to think about any given issue. If you like the newscasters (I believe the females are all blonde, with high cheekbones and flowing hair, the mask required of all of the newscasters). As for getting the news out of any of them, they could be sipping beer, or lounging in their living rooms, literally chatting to each other about what they liked or didn't like about the news -- if they ever got around to talking about it. After all, this is not real news - it's opinion news that challenges the television reporter to assert his or views in contrast to the report the or she is going to eventually, at some time in the future... we're waiting.... deliver.

It's easy to be a liberal and dislike Fox. But there was a time when I thought it was cutting edge -- now it's a razor with which to commit suicide while listening to them pander to mainstream NASCAR-America. I believe that it has done more to lower the standards of objective news gathering; and I guess the other stations do it, but I'd like to think that the CNNs and MSNBCs of the world do it more subliminally.

In a gesture of objectivity, however, I'm actually going to watch Fox Cable News all this week to gather my news (nothing else) and see if I can survive.

The week is looking pretty long, already. And I'm depressed at the thought of it. Like a hostage after lengthy captivity begins to identify with his captors, the same might happen to me, too. I may start liking George Bush and hating all things Muslim by the time the week is through.

Can I stay tuned? We'll see.

Sphere: Related Content

Is there Too Much Testosterone on MSNBC?

I've watched Dan Abrams for a couple of years now on MSNBC and was disappointed when his show went off the air. However, overall, I was happy for him, as he was moving up from the ranks of a lawyer with opinions (actually worthy of a show) to General Manager of the whole cable channel! Way to go, Dan, I thought. I still enjoy his periodic appearances when he subs for other news presenters, but I've taken a big step back to see what he's done to the channel. Well, not knowing his marital status or whether or not he's dating, I'd still wager that he has either imbibed Viagra intravenously, or he's frustrated that it's not doing its job. Where am I going with this?

I think MSNBC is thinking too much about sex. Or is it just me?

All day today, from Contessa Brewer flirting with the elderly "NASA guy" who is probably the only newsman who doesn't have to wear a tie ("did you know you're my favorite newsman; did you know that, "-- she cooed at him yesterday, or something to that effect). Then it was her description of the kissing pandas who do it "with tongue," she giggled. Apparently, two Japanese pandas are obsessively affectionate with each other [close up on animal lust]. The pandas got more than their 15 minutes of fame, and if MSNBC has their way they'll have a series.

Back to Abrams. Where was I? Abrams proceeds to rage about Hillary Clinton's lament that the media were too harsh with her at the debates on Tuesday. But Abrams? He spun himself in his own web by bringing panelists to discuss Hillary's claim at her all girls alma mater (Wellesley) that she could tussle "with the big boys."

And Mr. Abrams took offense. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

Does he expect her to say that notwithstanding her skirts and heels, she's really a male and that's why she's running for President? He had two guests, whose names escape me because they were both plants for opposite female viewpoints (one pro female, the other anti-female). Abrams sat back in his seat, turning his lip up with disgust, as he exclaimed that the press wasn't being hard on her. She was the front runner, and maybe that was the reason why they were giving her a barrage of questions. I agree with Ms. Clinton, however.

I do believe that Tim Russert has lost his objectivity, and seems driven in putting her in her place. She needed the tousle - I mean, gee -- we might have a woman in charge of the USA! Run for your lives! Only men can screw up the country. But Russert wasn't going to hand it to her on a silver platter. Here's where Abrams tripped over his logic: the media was being tough on her, she was playing the "gender card," for people to lay off her. She was being a wimp and wasn't taking it like a man. And how dare she complain.

In my opinion, the debates were an all male tousle equivalent to a hazing for being in the male locker room. But it worked. I felt sympathetic for her. I think she acquitted herself better than most men would do. And that's the point. They want her to be weak -- but as a President, she is not going to be, is she? So the issue of sex is -- just what it is. Senator Clinton is a woman running for President and makes every man have to acknowledge that a woman might actually be on top, as it were. Get over it, Abrams. Not satisfied with bashing just one woman, Abrams then decided to deride Heather Mills McCartney for her emotional break down on television in the United Kingdom. She's gone through hell and back, apparently, as the former Beatles wife-not-to-be-anymore-soon -- is distraught with her treatment by the media. Abrams then proceeded to scorn her "cry me a river" sentiments, practically calling her a fraud. Which way do you want it, Dan? A simpering woman, or a strong one? Abrams basically contends that if a woman fights back about her treatment, she can't take the heat - and should all go back to the kitchen while you men stay on his network!

Yep. Dan has reinvented testosterone TV, for the cable station's intellectual viewers. "Dock Block," rhymes with.....something. Has Abrams renewed his machismo by smoking cigars with the NBC brass (a macho past time that I have yet to understand for my penchant for brown and phallic thinking). Well, however he's found his cojones, now, and wants us to meet America's worst class of people besides politicians -- prisoners who actually get caught for their crimes. MSNBC is obsessed with men in prison. They could have bought "Oz" reruns and called it a night.

I guess I shouldn't complain. They could have reminded us over and over again that 3 [unnamed] soldiers gave their lives to help score a record in Iraq (the lowest month of GI dead in Iraq in a long time -- only 39). No names. Just numbers. But they'll give us the details about sex.

War isn't fun. And this election is the most important in our history. But we mustn't forget. While we're arguing about skirts and shirts and kissing pandas, and hard men in prisons without women - Americans are dying to preserve our -- values? Bless those soldiers, anyway, and may they be protected -- while we watch sex on TV news.

Sphere: Related Content