Friday, September 21, 2007

Today ... Ugh

The dogs woke me up early today, and I made the mistake of turning on the news. I usually watch NBC, so the Today Show was just about to come on. I'm always interested to see what news reports think is the "top" story, because so often my idea is much different from theirs -- and today was no exception.

After the opening music, Matt Lauer began the headlines. The top stories included: Israel attack on Syria, and what the president knew ... the ad, will it hurt Democrats ... and the latest on Britney Spears and Kevin Federline's divorce.

Of the three, in my opinion there is really only one that is newsworthy -- and it's NOT the latest Britney/Kevin story -- which I quite frankly find annoying. This is a "top story" for what reason?

Clearly, the only story worthy of morning news coverage is the first one.

NBC News doesn't expand it's report on Israel's attack on Syria, because that would involve having to do ACTUAL investigative reporting. And that costs money! The 'bottom line' is more important to NBC than bringing the American public the news.

Next up was the "report" about Petraeus and the Move On ad. Instead of analyzing the testimony of Petraeus for it's accuracy, NBC is focusing on the Move On ad and whether or not it will "hurt" Democrats. And why? Because it would take a little digging to uncover the facts, and again that is more expensive than simply bashing a "liberal" organization for demanding the truth.

In talking about the story, NBC turns to its "expert" on anything Washington -- Tim Russert, who is such an asshole. He twists everything to the president's advantage.

Meredith Viera asked Russert: "You tell me what's happening in Washington. Instead of debating the war it's this discussion of the ad that's overtaking everybody. Why?"

Russert's response: "Ah, because the emphasis is on this ad because the president wants very much to debate the idea of General Petraeus' honor. About whether or not the Democrats like to quote "aggravate" the military. It's an emotional, passionate issue that works, ah and -- an was pointed out in the earlier segment -- half the Democrats, Meredith, particularly those from swing states voted to condemn that ad."

[Note: Russert seemed to be having a lot of trouble putting his word together this morning. Was it just because its early, or is it difficult to talk and tell lies at the same time?]

Meredith: "Well, the head of said he does not think that the ad has backfired on the Democratic Party, do you agree?"

Russert: "Clearly the vote yesterday indicated a lot of Democrats disagree. Ah, Chuck Hagel who was name was (sic) invoked voted against, ah voted for censoring the ad or condemning the ad. The point is Meredith, Democrats would prefer to be debating the situation on the ground in Iraq -- the presence of 165,000 troops, whether or not they should be redeployed or withdrawn. To be debating the ad, they see as a distraction. The Republicans, on the other hand, see this as going to the core of the debate -- that the Democrats are weak, they want to be very much anti-military, and this is a preferential debate for the Republicans to have."

And if this is the debate the Republicans want, of course NBC and Russert are going to oblige. I wonder how much the White House is paying him for all this propaganda.

1 comment:

Liberality said...

Russert is one of Bush's biggest supporters so of course he can only bash the Democrats every time he opens his mouth. Russert is a douche bag plain and simple.