Bloodless Coup

Daniel Schorr is a blathering monument to the inadequacy of current-day Alzheimer's medications. Has he said anything relevant since the Nixon administration?

Just this morning he was blathering about Nixon. It's time for him to stop. I don't deny that he's had a long career that many people have enjoyed, and that its a sentimental nod to keep him on, but really, someone needs to have that uncomfortable conversation with him soon (unless they think he's not going to make it for much longer). It's getting embarrassing.

Though of course the thing is that most pundits and regular analysts are just as bad. For whatever reason (a familiar name, the "star system"?) all the news networks seem to have the same bunch of analysts they trot out for any and every issue or event. The thing is though, that most of these people are generalists who are not experts on the issue at hand, so you just end up with the same old lame comments and framings again and again and again. Doesn't matter if you are having Sunday brunch with Brit Hume, or watching the News Hour (I presume they still have their usual panel of historians that rarely if ever changes), or seeing politicians being interviewed on ABC or NBC (many politicians who are brought on these shows are seemingly brought on for "star power", not because they'll actually say something insightful about the issue at hand). It's the system, broadly, that's the problem, not just one network or commentator. Of course some of the talking heads are somewhat more insightful than others (I don't rush to turn off the radio if Juan Williams is doing the Monday morning analysis, whereas I do tend to do that if they're going to have Cokie Roberts on), but relying on generalists as opposed to experts greatly lowers the standard of analysis you are going to get. And if that's the case, why have analysis?

I haven't trusted NPR as news in a few years. What idiot law prof was this? Was this here, or some other school?

I listen 'cause every other radio station in town is worse, not because NPR is any good. They can have money from me when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I remember the exact moment when I gave up on NPR, and swore they would never get another donation from me without some kind of divine intervention. It was when I tuned in for a Bush/Gore presidential debate and they weren't broadcasting. Falling down on the job.

Mine was when I tuned in for Gore's speech after he lost in the Supreme Court...and NPR wasn't carrying it. That wasn't news?

mine is every time i have to hear steve inskeep's incredibly un-funny asides. who told this guy the news would be better if he told jokes? and then told him he had to write them himself?

i'm not disagreeing with any of the points above, and as a long-time listener and donor (i think more in terms of the local station when i give) i recognize that many of the same flaws were true under bob edwards' stewardship.

but morning edition has been a suckfest ever since they fired edwards. and it's interesting that someone mentioned keeping schorr on out of a sort of nostalgia. what, edwards, who'd actually been carrying the show for like twenty years, doesn't get the nostalgia treatment? especially given that even stinking drunk he would have been sharper and more pleasant to listen to than inspeek. (i recognize i may be botching his name; i can't bring myself to look it up.)

i keep listening but only because everything else available sucks ass, and i need some sort of news in the morning. when i get more (much more) out of jon stewart about the travesty that was Gonzalez's Senate testimony than i can anywhere else, where the VT story continues to dominate, something's very very wrong.

D'oh. I was hoping they are mending their ways this morning. The first two stories were reasonable, informative pieces on the elections in Nigeria and France. And then what's next? Why a feature on Hugh Hefner of course. Ugh.

Hah. We must have had the psychic connection. I was thinking the same thing. And it was pretty fawning. Even the feminist criticism question wa a softball.

NPR has been sliding downhill since the early 1980's...and now it has permanently achieved status as a branch of the "what-would-the-mid-level-bureaucrat-worrying-about-keeping-his-job-dare-to-say-on-a-subject" type of news.
I started listening to All Things C. in 1979. Am I suffering from the delusion of nostalgia in believing that back then the stories were longer, more thought provoking, and attempted to get to the root of a story rather than present the surface pablum?
But really, aren't their attempts at humor awful. It's like SNL for the past twenty years...someone somewhere thinks this is funny, but certainly not someone with a sense of humor.
As to Juan vs. Cokie - I find their commentary to be fine examples of the lowest form of snarky kiss ass. But while Cokie is obviously out of touch with anything resembling reality, Juan is still very much on the make and therefore more opprobrious to my ear. But I listen to them both in the hope that I will be spurred on to some new term of offense that I've never used before!
On the other hand, in the eyes of a young conservative law student attuned to the world of fair and balanced news, even the drivel of NPR would be like a mild tap on the shoulder in Plato's cave.

"in the eyes of a young conservative law student attuned to the world of fair and balanced news, even the drivel of NPR would be like a mild tap on the shoulder in Plato's cave."

fantastic line.

first, if you haven't tried SNL now that they've streamlined down to 10 castmembers, mostly comprised of the uberhip downtown new york improv crowd, you should. SNL has been incrementally improving for 5 years, and this year it's absolutely fantastic, IMHO.

second, today i had a new gripe. i think it was story corps, or maybe it was this i believe -- two relatively innocuous things i haven't heretofore cared a whit for but rarely find myself getting upset about -- this morning that featured parents talking about their deceased child, who died of some malady i came in to the room too late to identify. whatever it was, though, they let it run on for a good three or four minutes. and i do so very sympathize with the parents, i really do, but it was just maudlin, two plus minutes of alternating tear-stained confessions of bereavement and attempts to find meaning.

if outreach is the point, i'm all for it -- do a reported story and end it with an action item -- whom to support, where to donate, etc. but there was none of that; i listened to almost the whole story and just in missing the very beginning i ended up with no idea what they were talking about except that it sounded really awful to watch.

but really, i'm not that prone to emotional responses to sad stories on the news, but i was practically curled up in a ball on the floor sobbing by the time they were done, and i'm sure others were as well. affecting, of course; news, not even close.

it just seemed gratuitous to me.