Bob McCannon's blog

For a week, I have been monitoring CBS and NBC's national news' coverage of the energy crisis. Each night they give us a "new record" in gas and oil prices, and "discuss" the controversy. Their debate is almost always framed as a choice between "drilling" and "conservation."

The networks go into "depth" (as much depth as sixty second TV news stories can) about the candidates positions on whether or not to drill in ANWR or offshore, or conserve. often mentioned is more "clean" coal (if such a thing exists) or more nuclear plants.

I can still remember the excruciating personal pain I felt when the news of Bobby Kennedy's assassination came over the radio of my VW bug . . . when that tinny little speaker extinguished another part of my idealism.

I am appalled at Hillary's continued use of assassination (four different speeches) as an explanation for why she is staying in the race. Certainly, I don't think she wishes that fate upon Barack, but the repeated use of the event and the word assassination is too _______ (fill in the blank) for me.

On Apr 29, 2008, at 10:20 AM, David Kleeman wrote:
DK: Am I then to conclude you believe that every act of aggression or violence is directly caused by violent media exposure? 

--Not any more than I think a girl with an eating disorder has been affected by the culture, or that a kid who smokes has been affected by movies or a child that is overweight has been affected by advertising. I think that due to the exposure, each act becomes more likely, even if just a tiny bit more likely.

This article below, posted by Neil Anderson, is probably public relations from the gaming industry, which is bigger than the movie industry, and even less responsible.

-- To suggest that all the carefully controlled video game studies are obsolete and to minimize the careful work of many independent researchers is an injustice that flies in the face of reality. The violent video game parasites continue to exploit our most vulnerable youth.

"I thought the most telling moment of the last seven years occurred last week when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was, literally, almost weeping that Exxon was being treated unfairly by a jury in Alaska."
-----------James Carville, Meet the Press, 03-02-08
Doe this sound radical? If it does, why? Does it symbolize corporatized America?
Nuff said.

The crux of Tom Regan's thesis (article below) is: "The reality in today's world of online journalism is that both old and new views count, and traditional journalists ignore this at their own peril."

He defines "new" news views as youth interests such as stories about the iPhone and "old" views as NY Times stories about the Iraq war. I see it as more than youth vs aged.

Here's a question. Should the news try to be objective? There is no doubt that Olbermann is a brilliant, articulate, analytic genius whose passion tends to agree with mine, and I love him. But, should we evolve toward a news environment that is totally composed of competing one-sided shows (like Olbermann and O'Reilly)? That seems to be the direction we are heading.