Interestingly enough the network news rating have decline precipitously since the beginning of the Reagan administration through today. It is no accident that the fastest growing segments of the news media are in talk radio, Cable News (FNC) and the internet (blogs, Drudge etc...) that are much more in synch with mainstream America.

"...the media solidly considers Reagan a 'vacuous ideologue.'...."

Andrew, I know you have a life and therefore, fortunately, don't watch a lot of tv, but this is so wildly out of touch with the days of multiple hours of uncritically worshipful hagiography that has been broadcast on every broadcast channel (I can't speak to cable, not presently having it), that I have to simply say this has no relationship whatever with what I've seen in many hours of having the tv on in the background. Nor with all the major magazine coverage (Newsweek, Time, US News, etc.), nor with every major newspaper (a handful of which have also had, among twenty-to-thirty pieces of praise, one or two critical pieces).

I'm continuing to not speak anything negative of President Reagan. An American President has died, and I honor that. He was my President, and I regret the country's loss.

There has been, however, no lack of tv time devoted to his virtues, nor of magazine or newspaper wordage. Debatable or not, in the mainstream, little ill has been said compared to extolment. Hundreds of hours of worth, millions of words. By every major mainstream news outlet in America, regardless of medium.

So I'm at a loss about this. I'll have to check Virginia's post. It's a "when worlds collide" thing, or something.

I don't recall the last time I've seen so much time on tv networks, day after day, news program after program, coming up with so many tens of hours of hagiography. Ever. And that's just on broadcast, not cable. Possibly for JFK, but I only saw some of that with attention at the time.

So it is your position that the media can't think poorly of Reagan yet still broadcast/print positive things about him on the event of his death? Interesting.

A note on that online poll. When I saw it yesterday, the results were quite different. 33% prefered the 'vacuous' option while 26% opting for the other extreme. It's now shifted significantly the other direction. And while I know its non-scientific, I hope it causes the author/promoter much consternation.

But it probably wont. Whomever put it together is likely oblivious to how prejudicial it is...
or it was written in jest.

"So it is your position that the media can't think poorly of Reagan yet still broadcast/print positive things about him on the event of his death?"

Nay. Not at all. It is my position that they can't play 99% hagiography, and still be libeled counterfactually as allegedly declaring him to be "solidly consider[ed] [...] Reagan a 'vacuous ideologue.'...."

That's just not true. It is not factual. It is wrong. It is an utterly false description of countless hundreds of hours of videotape. And I've seen the coverage, and it is completely untrue.

It's, in fact, out there in bizarronutzo land.

The coverage has been worthy of an Emperor. That's more than "positive."

There are many many many valid, and positive, things to say about our former President, President Reagan.

And they've been said on all broadcast networks of primetime U.S. tv, over dozens, if not hundreds, of hours. I've seen them. Brokaw, Rather, Jennings, and their teams.

A weeks worth of interviews extolling the ex-President, on every channel, on every program, extended by hours. Off-hand, I'd count it at five hours a morning, times four, three hours and afternoon, times four, five times an evening, times four, more or less.

That doesn't count the cable channels non-stop coverage, of course. That's about 180 hours. I've watched most of it. I don't know how much you've sampled. I'd say it's about 99% criticism free. What's your judgement after how much you've watched?

I'll say not more at this time. Save that we need beware fables concocted by ideologues from any extreme, because this is the sort of time they feel ripe.

It never occurred to me that I might want to tape hundreds of hours of paens to our late President because they might be contested as not existing. I want to believe that would never happen.

The idea that the media is being unkind to Ronald Reagan? I don't know what to say. Save that such an idea scares me. It's such a complete denial of reality that it scares me.

Might I suggest that since I'm off in bizzaronutland, that you may as well not stop by any longer, then? No point in reading the rantings of a nut, I should think.

But since it is also a fact that the poll of media members showed a strong bias (47% when I read it) of people who felt Reagan was a vacuous ideologue, I'll stick to what I said.

I welcome argument, but I have no time for insults.

Then again, when I note that I didn't actually say what you're attributing to me, it becomes clear that if there's a bizzaronutbag here, it would be the person putting words in my mouth. Might I suggest a few reading comprehension lessons might be of assistance before commenting on what you think you read in the future?

I see the need to rush to the defense of a fellow Soldier. News media snobs such as Jennings and Brokaw would have liked to stem the flow of Reagan "hagiography" last week, but even the mainstream news networks have to bow to the surge of public demand for information about the life and achievements of our nation's 40th President. And on the Internet, search engines were swamped with inquiries about Ronald Reagan.

buy aldara
from our secure server! get next day delivery free! and save over 70% on all of our popular brand name medications. Delete if you dont like it.