Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Matt and Walt
If Matt Lauer is the Walter Cronkite of our age, then the MSM is in deeper trouble than I thought. ... I mean, really now. I don't care whether Iraq is technically in a civil war or not. It probably is, for all I know. But what bothers me about NBC's announcement that it will now refer to the conflict in Iraq as a 'civil war' is the annoying self-importance NBC conveys by merely announcing it -- and the fact other media outlets treat it as real news. This is history? No, this is history in terms of where the media is going. NBC merely pried itself away from all its focus-group Health Watch stories to make what it thinks is a profound decision on war terminology and ... and the rest of the country really doesn't care, Matt. ...
They're now talking about fears of 'pogroms' in Iraq. Do pogroms go hand in hand with civil wars? The Czars launched lots of pogroms while their regimes were relatively stable, so the answer is 'no.' But the Marines are also now saying that Anbar province is lost and that foreign Al-Qaeda fighters are streaming in to back the Sunnis. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, a client of Iran, is training Shiite fighters. So are we now talking about a 'regional war' or a 'civil war'? Help us, Matt! ... A delicious irony is that the Bush administration, which stubbornly refused to call an 'insurgency' an 'insurgency' when it counted, is sticking to its line that Iraq still faces an 'insurgency.' ... Oh my. I'm in a cynical mood today.
Update -- Howard Kurtz on NBC's glowing coverage of itself: Beginning to feel a 'little bit like a gimmick.' Do you think?
If Matt Lauer is the Walter Cronkite of our age, then the MSM is in deeper trouble than I thought. ... I mean, really now. I don't care whether Iraq is technically in a civil war or not. It probably is, for all I know. But what bothers me about NBC's announcement that it will now refer to the conflict in Iraq as a 'civil war' is the annoying self-importance NBC conveys by merely announcing it -- and the fact other media outlets treat it as real news. This is history? No, this is history in terms of where the media is going. NBC merely pried itself away from all its focus-group Health Watch stories to make what it thinks is a profound decision on war terminology and ... and the rest of the country really doesn't care, Matt. ...
They're now talking about fears of 'pogroms' in Iraq. Do pogroms go hand in hand with civil wars? The Czars launched lots of pogroms while their regimes were relatively stable, so the answer is 'no.' But the Marines are also now saying that Anbar province is lost and that foreign Al-Qaeda fighters are streaming in to back the Sunnis. Meanwhile, Hezbollah, a client of Iran, is training Shiite fighters. So are we now talking about a 'regional war' or a 'civil war'? Help us, Matt! ... A delicious irony is that the Bush administration, which stubbornly refused to call an 'insurgency' an 'insurgency' when it counted, is sticking to its line that Iraq still faces an 'insurgency.' ... Oh my. I'm in a cynical mood today.
Update -- Howard Kurtz on NBC's glowing coverage of itself: Beginning to feel a 'little bit like a gimmick.' Do you think?
