Rather and Brokaw

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 4:31 pm

June 9, 2004 -- DAN Rather and Tom Brokaw work for dif ferent networks but agree one thing — coverage of Ronald Reagan's death has been excessive, they say.
"Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life does go on," Rather told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"There is other news, like the reality of Iraq," said the "CBS Evening News" anchor. "It got very short shrift this weekend."

Networks have been going almost wall-to-wall with coverage since Reagan passed away Saturday at the age of 93. The former president was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease nearly 10 years ago.

"Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly," Rather said. "Nationally, the herd has grown tremendously."

"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," said Brokaw, who anchors the "NBC Nightly News." "The spectrum is so crowded. With all the cable networks, it begins to have a 'video wall' feeling to it."

Jennings said he had mixed feelings about the Reagan coverage.

"I'm more inclined to spare coverage — come on [the air], do something meaningful, then get away," he said.

"The last time I had to do it was with O.J. Simpson [during the 1994 car chase], and I had nothing to say after a certain period of time."

Coverage of Reagan's death will continue through Friday's funeral on all the news networks (broadcast and cable). — Post TV Staff

Home

NEW YORK POST is a registered trademark of NYP Holdings, Inc. NYPOST.COM, NYPOSTONLINE.COM, and NEWYORKPOST.COM
are trademarks of NYP Holdings, Inc.
Copyright 2003 NYP Holdings, Inc. All rights reserved.

It's funny but I can't recall anyone in the media saying they were overdoing the Princess Diana death. Gosh, it couldn't be because Reagan is a Republican that they would be saying this, would it?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » June 9, 2004, 4:36 pm

No it's because we are at fucking war and it's getting pushed aside for a stiff you moron

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2004, 4:40 pm

It's funny but I can't recall anyone in the media saying they were overdoing the Princess Diana death.

Dunno about here but I was in Norway when it happened and it was said there that it was overdone. Not to mention the cause of death were just slightly different.

Stop being obsessed. It's funny how the Conservatives always claim Liberals are scared of conspiracies and see black helicopters coming for them.. you are the most obsessed person I have ever seen.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » June 9, 2004, 4:42 pm

Any national issue gets over-covered, whats the big suprise?

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 9, 2004, 4:47 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It's funny but I can't recall anyone in the media saying they were overdoing the Princess Diana death.

That's because you couldn't hear it over the crappy pop start single dedications, memorial bake-offs, and media wank-fests. Plenty of people realized it was a load of bull. Besides, having been in the royal family, i think that legally makes her inbred, not a democrat.

Please tell me not all republicans are so paranoid about the liberal conspiracy to downplay the staggering importance of the passing of a technical vegitable. Besides, wasn't it memorial day or something down there last weekend? To me that sounds like a bigger deal.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 4:51 pm

It doesn't surprise me that you cannot see the corelation. It has nothing to do with paranoia and everything to do with realising the obvious.

Bush is benefitting from this. This is something that cannot be allowed. Thus the need to get the word out that it is being overdone and to help discredit much of the praise that has been happening the last few days.

Animalor · Post by **Animalor** » June 9, 2004, 4:56 pm

they're right. The whole f'ing weekend we heard about Regan and practically nothing about JLo's wedding!!

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 9, 2004, 5:02 pm

Animalor wrote:they're right. The whole f'ing weekend we heard about Regan and practically nothing about JLo's wedding!!

I would consider it to be Marc's wedding before that whore of a slut!

Spankes · Post by **Spankes** » June 9, 2004, 5:04 pm

Well, I think Diana was way overdone. But there is a major difference...she was killed with no warning at a pretty young age. Reagan has been dying for 10+ years...this came as no surprise.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2004, 5:13 pm

Marc Anthony looks like a sniveling rat.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 9, 2004, 5:27 pm

It's funny but I can't recall anyone in the media saying they were overdoing the Princess Diana death. Gosh, it couldn't be because Reagan is a Republican that they would be saying this, would it?

"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," said Brokaw

Im sure Diana would count as "just about everything" and I agree that Diana was still overblown, but it deserves more coverage than Reagan. Diana was in her prime, not a 93 year old man who died of old age. Her life was cut very short, Reagans was not. Everyone expected Reagan to die, so why the fuck is it a big deal. Dianna's death was a shock to the whole world.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 5:37 pm

It wasn't a shock to the whole world. What accomplishments did she have? What major achievements was she a part of that changed history? In no way is her legacy even 1/100 of Reagan's. That is why he deserves those accolades. Why do so many people care about a Princess? We are far seperated from the days of King Arthur where Kings and Queens mean anything, nevertheless mean anything to other countries.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » June 9, 2004, 5:50 pm

I find it quite informative to see that Mr. Rather considers his audience akin to a herd of cattle.

Such an attitude explains why he has a hard time understanding society.

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 9, 2004, 5:54 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:It wasn't a shock to the whole world. What accomplishments did she have? What major achievements was she a part of that changed history? In no way is her legacy even 1/100 of Reagan's. That is why he deserves those accolades. Why do so many people care about a Princess? We are far seperated from the days of King Arthur where Kings and Queens mean anything, nevertheless mean anything to other countries.

I used to be of this opinion concerning the value of all "famous" people (filmstars, rockstars, etc). I took the time to do some web searches and discovered that they collectively raise billions of dollars for innumerable charity organizations through fundraisers, etc. As a result of my findings, I have grudgingly admit their value to society when using their fame for noble causes.

In Diana's case, she was a spokesperson and major fundraiser (in addition to her own donations) for the Red Cross, leukemia funds, AIDS funds, cancer (breast mostly) research and charities, etc, etc. At the time of her death, I was dismayed that her death overshadowed the death of Mother Teresa, but I still must admit that her fundraising and work to raise public awareness through her fame made a measurable contribution to humanity.

Midnyte, you will be extremely lucky to make a small part of her contribution in your life (that isn't an insult, just an observation).

I do not intend to walk into oncoming traffic by comparing her to Reagan, and I consider the whole conversation incredibly distasteful. As it happens, I suspect that there are scientists, doctors, noble laureates, etc who have contributed a thousand times over what Reagan did that haven't/won't get the press coverage that he has. The mass media public doesn't work that way, sick bastards they are

archeiron · Post by **archeiron** » June 9, 2004, 5:57 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I find it quite informative to see that Mr. Rather considers his audience akin to a herd of cattle.

Such an attitude explains why he has a hard time understanding society.

Would you please clarify whether or not you are trying to dispute the notion that reasonable, rational free thinking individuals behave mindlessly when taken together in a herd? Herd behaviour and mentality is well documented and much discussed by psychologists.

If you are not disputing this fact, is your comment designed to find fault with someone you have previously determined is a "liberal" and therefore "always wrong"?

I am just curious.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 9, 2004, 6:00 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I find it quite informative to see that Mr. Rather considers his audience akin to a herd of cattle.

Such an attitude explains why he has a hard time understanding society.

I think he was referring to the media itself, not the audience.

Krurk · Post by **Krurk** » June 9, 2004, 6:00 pm

Adex_Xeda wrote:I find it quite informative to see that Mr. Rather considers his audience akin to a herd of cattle.

Such an attitude explains why he has a hard time understanding society.

He is referring to news organizations.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 6:00 pm

Understandable Arch. Maybe if I was rich and didn't have to work and was expected and even set up by all my royal aides to do these charitable things, I would as well.

Keverian FireCry · Post by **Keverian FireCry** » June 9, 2004, 6:11 pm

So you are gonna ignore all the good things Diana did, when she had no obligation to do any of it, because she was rich? You are a fucking moron. She wasn't born into royalty, she married into it, and she had no obligation to do any charitable work. She understood that she had so much and she decided to help others with the power she had and she did a lot of good. and you are going to slander her for it? You really are hateful peice of shit.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 6:25 pm

I'm not hateful at all. Just saying she did probably have to do all those things. Those things are expected of her and most likely all set up for her by her aides. It's not slander, it's being realistic.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 9, 2004, 6:29 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:I'm not hateful at all. Just saying she did probably have to do all those things. Those things are expected of her and most likely all set up for her by her aides. It's not slander, it's being realistic.

Try verifying your "most likely" assumption. Do all members of the Royal Family do charity work in a similar manner to the work Dianna did?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 9, 2004, 6:38 pm

Here's one.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2681.asp

Just type in "royal family charities" in Google.com.

It's common sense though. It's what rich people have the ability to do. Especially pamped people like the Royal Family. It's not like they have jobs.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » June 9, 2004, 6:43 pm

Im sure Diana would count as "just about everything" and I agree that Diana was still overblown, but it deserves more coverage than Reagan. Diana was in her prime, not a 93 year old man who died of old age. Her life was cut very short, Reagans was not. Everyone expected Reagan to die, so why the fuck is it a big deal. Dianna's death was a shock to the whole world.

Just want that reposted in case Midnyte missed it the first time.

It is always more newsworthy and I daresay more tragic when a young person dies in an unexpected manner, than when a older person fades away, regardless of their "accomplishments". People wonder "what would they have accomplished if they had lived longer" and it doesn't matter if its Dianna, JFK, Jimi Hendrix or Johnny Green from the next block. We wonder about that untapped/unused potential. Reagan had done what he could and Alzheimer's ensured that he was finished, whether he wanted to be or not.

I really fail to see how this can be construed as political: its not like Bush or Kerry had anything to do with what Reagan did, didn't or forgot he did while in office...

Fesuni Chopsui · Post by **Fesuni Chopsui** » June 9, 2004, 6:55 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Understandable Arch. Maybe if I was rich and didn't have to work and was expected and even set up by all my royal aides to do these charitable things, I would as well.

Right, because Reagan was incredibly poor and was thrown into the presidency without wanting it or working for it!

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » June 9, 2004, 7:13 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Here's one.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page2681.asp

Just type in "royal family charities" in Google.com.

It's common sense though. It's what rich people have the ability to do. Especially pamped people like the Royal Family. It's not like they have jobs.

Yes rich people have the ability to do great charity work. All not so rich also have the ability to do some form of charity work. Many of us choose not to. I respect those that do. You seem to feel the need to tear down Dianna in some totally unrelated argument to make RR look better or justify the crazy attention it is getting (like a front page story on cnn regarding the body's movements).

That link you gave me gave no information pertaining to my question. Just from my own recollection I have not noticed any member of the royal family visibly contributing anywhere near as much time to charity as Dianna did. They all have the ability to do so.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » June 9, 2004, 7:21 pm

What the fuck does Princess Diana have to do with Reagan? Not that I give a shit about the British Royal Family, but why the hell is this a relevant or germane comparison?

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 9, 2004, 7:23 pm

Understandable Arch. Maybe if I was rich and didn't have to work and was expected and even set up by all my royal aides to do these charitable things, I would as well.

Shows how pathetic your knowledge about Diana truly is.

Just saying she did probably have to do all those things. Those things are expected of her and most likely all set up for her by her aides. It's not slander, it's being realistic.

Yeah because most of her work was done AFTER she divorced Charles. Wowza!

Man you truly are a sad, hateful piece of shit. I pity your family.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 9, 2004, 8:21 pm

Kelshara wrote:
It's funny but I can't recall anyone in the media saying they were overdoing the Princess Diana death.
Dunno about here but I was in Norway when it happened and it was said there that it was overdone. Not to mention the cause of death were just slightly different.

Stop being obsessed. It's funny how the Conservatives always claim Liberals are scared of conspiracies and see black helicopters coming for them.. you are the most obsessed person I have ever seen.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/ ... ary.today/

Back in Early 98
"Look at the very people who are involved in this. They have popped up in other settings. The great story here for anybody willing to find it, write about it and explain it is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president," Mrs. Clinton said.

Sounds like both sides have conspiracy on the brain issues, whenever you get people from the far ends of the spectrum you get weird.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » June 9, 2004, 8:55 pm

The whole premise of this argument is insanely stupid. It's not the liberals seeing the black helicopters around every corner it's the Republicans... WHY? BECAUSE THEY SENT THEM!

You can't continually throw dirt at everyone else, start "special sessions" about anything that might help them win all why wasting the taxpayers dollars without being a little pernoid that it will come back to bite you in the arse someday... and believe me, if Clinton has passed the Patriot Act and Carter had sent John Robert Starr after Reagan I would say the same thing about the democrats... If you don't think the Republicans are guilty of this go to Google and type in "Watergate" .... of course the Dems do it too but certantly not as bad. Could you just IMAGINE the whoopla if Clinton had of attacked Iraq and all the same stuff come out?... whew, that's just too much to think about.

Marb

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 9, 2004, 9:30 pm

actually, stating that it's a sekrit plot to discredit Bush sounds exactly like paranoia. Not on the level of, say, wearing a tinfoil hat, but consider that it may just be that there IS a lot of coverage for no reason. And I don't see how it'd help Bush anyway. it's not like there's any current blunder he'd want attention diverted from.

Now, I may not be one of the excrement-flinging monkeys on this board looking to slap you around every chance i get, but have you ever considered that sometimes people, (even, and i hate to admit this, people involved with the 'news') say things they've actually reasoned out, and haven't exclusively dedicated their lives to republican-bashing conspiracies?

That goes for more than just Midnyte too... some of the liberals seem to think that Bush took office strictly to piss them off. It's kinda silly.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 9, 2004, 9:36 pm

It IS being way overdone, no matter what your opinion was in the man. I turn on the news to watch current events, and every single fucking news station is showing old footage of ronald regan and showing the same speeches/quotes from him over and over and over again
on every news station, Ronald Regan coverage is ALL THAT IS ON, it is very excessive

Niffoni · Post by **Niffoni** » June 9, 2004, 9:43 pm

By the way, Kerry is trying to leech off of this too. If I hear one more time that he "visited Reagan more than Bush did", and play off like Ronnie would support HIM if he was still alive, I may just have to fly down and smack him.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » June 10, 2004, 12:45 am

Niffoni wrote:By the way, Kerry is trying to leech off of this too. If I hear one more time that he "visited Reagan more than Bush did", and play off like Ronnie would support HIM if he was still alive, I may just have to fly down and smack him.

I do have to admit Kerry does say some stupid shit

I love how he said something like "Clinton was considered by many to be the first black president, i wouldn't mind being considered the second"
He does believe in some good stuff though, he lacks charisma, but has a great record and the potential to be a great president, or at least a good garbage man to clean up Bush's war mongering wake of destruction.

Lynxe · Post by **Lynxe** » June 10, 2004, 9:06 am

I don't much care if it is Regan or Dianna - they were both far overdone in the media and that annoys me to no end.

As for who I'd respect more, Princess Diana had some remarkable achievments in her short lived life and all because she could, not because she had to. Regan's achievments were part of a political agenda. I don't think there IS a comparison.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 10, 2004, 9:08 am

Man, Kerry is a moron, Bush has been at the G8 Conference which is certainly more important that walking past the shell of a human being.

VeeshanVault

Rather and Brokaw

Rather and Brokaw

Re: Rather and Brokaw