Wash. Post's Kurtz: "Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation"
April 02, 2007 10:15 am ET
Discussing coverage of the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) in his April 2 Media Notes column, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted, "Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation." Kurtz gave no indication whether he thinks the public is well served by the media's fixation on Clinton's marriage to former President Bill Clinton.
Expand All
Expand 1st Level
Collapse All
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Queston: If the "media critic" finds policy issues so dull, and the most popular candidate of the Democratic Party so dull, how is it that in a time of such vital policy issues facing our nation does a "media critic" recieve a forum from the Washington Post for a political column??
Answer: The owners of the Washington Post and their editors have an agenda that is driven by the corporate interest of it's parent conglomerate, making the Post little more than a "propaganda rag" or at best an elaborate "corporate trade paper."
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Please vote for your favorite:
1 - Like we needed Howie to tell us that.
2 - Well, Friggin, Duuuuh!
3 - Thanks for adding to the idiocy, Howie.
New choices are more than welcome.
It'd be too much to ask this "media critic" to critique the media on this point. To borrow a phrase from Bruce Hornsby, 'that's just the way it is', right Howie?
kurtz like every one of these people are just opinions .they dont go out and talk to people. they sit behind a desk and say only what they feel.
when people say the american people feel this i laugh because they are making this up they may have only talked to there friends and formed this opinion
Actually, he was speaking on behalf of journalists, not the American people.
It's the whole chicken vs. the egg. It's obvious that the media is abusing its responsibility of telling the public what to think about, but if the advertising dollars are there, the media will keep putting out the same crap. The fault squarely falls on both the shoulders of the media for dishing it out, and for the public, who keeps eating it.
I'm not sure it falls so squarely. People aren't really being given a choice here, are they? We get gossip-rag nonsense from all corners, not just the Post. I don't think it's really fair to then turn to the public and say, "Well, it's your fault for eating it up." I don't think there's really so much of a chicken-or-egg paradox here. It's not as if people are being given a fair choice between ABC News and BBC World News, or between CBS and PBS. Jim Leherer simply isn't going to reach as many people as Katie Couric. You could blame people for being lazy, but it actually takes a little work to find real news. And that does rest on the shoulders of the media.
Just one more indication of the sorry state of journalism in America today. When Anna Nicole Smith's death gets more air time than the Iraq War, you know we're in trouble.
The Iraq War does not have enormous jugs.
Things I learned in Introduction to the Media (1975):
"News value is inversely proportional to its importance"
Ahh. Celebrity over substance, the cornerstone of American culture...and politics. That's what the elections will be all about, yet again. Celebrity A versus Celebrity B. The debate has already hit new lows, with arguments over voice pitches and where a candidate went to elementary school. There's no need for issues, they all read from the same script when it comes to policy. November 2008 will roll around and our troops and native children will still be dying in Iraq, as each party nominee outbids the other on how best to keep them there, how best to keep the killing going, all to please Israel.
Only we can end the madness. Greens 2008. Join the Revolution.
The Greens are going to fix political journalism?
No, but at least they'd put morals and issues back into the system. We're not a party of sociopathic killers. Dems and Repubs are.
This begs the question in my mind - Are the big media journalists really in touch with what is important to the American people? Or are they so consumed with turning a buck that they'll put up anything that draws attention?
Now, I'm no big fan of HRC but it sure seems like she's getting beaten up on something at every opportunity. The media and journalists should be wary of this tactic because it could very well backfire on them.
The media, even the WashPost, are sensationalists. It isn't gonna change when the goal is to sell newspapers or advertising airtime.
In what forum do you think a jab or expose on HRC's marriage will come to light? Jab in a debate? Coulter comment on TV? Calm question from an interview?
This is just a shot in the dark, but I would think it most likely that such crap will air first either on Rush Limbaugh or Matt Drudge. These seem to be the Go-To Liars for fresh GOP propaganda.
Don't be ridiculous. You might hear it over and over from them after they - I'm sorry, I mean their staffs - find it somewhere else, but first?
Limbaugh or Drudge doing actual reporting? hhmpaahaahaahaaa ha.... gack...hack... My milk just came out my nose...
Yeah and Hannity has the most comprehensive news coverage anywhere. *chuckle*
"Nothing the New York senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation."
Kurtz is making an observation here, and probably a correct one. He doesn't appear to be saying this obsession by journalists is a good thing. I don't think he is expected to comment on whether or not "the public is well served by the media's fixation" on this topic or any topic for that matter. He critiques the Media. He's simply stating an opinion about the media that most of us are already aware of.
True, Jeter, it is an observation by a media critic, but also a prediction based on very low expectations.
I think the item is making the point that Kurtz doesn't seem to be as concerned about the matter as he should be.
I think he is stating straight out that to him style trumps substance and sizzle trumps steak every time.
Exactly so. It sounds like he's dissing the press.
It is just a generalization. The press will be fascinated when she starts naming her cabinet. And when she confronts her first crisis. And when the Republicans call for her impeachment for whatever.
BTW, that YouTube Apple ad did Hillary nothing but good. She comes off as a strong leader while her opponent smashes a perfectly good big screen TV. What a waste!
Nerzog, I was hoping for a guess on who would bring it up among the "mainstream" media. Agree with them or not, I don't consider the guys you listed as mainstream.
In that case, I would predict Fox "News" or the Washington Times. It's also the kind of thing Chris Matthews likes to toss out in his panel discussions.
Wait a sec, was he talking about Giuliani or Gingrich? Oh, the Democrat. Gotcha.
"Nothing the NY Senator says or does will ever be as fascinating to journalists as her marital situation." - Howard Kurtz
Wow, Howie - I wonder why is that?
Is it because that's all you "journalists" ever seem to focus on?
Here's an idea, Howie: at the risk of being a layman telling journalists how to do their job, TRY FOCUSING ON SOMETHING OTHER THAN HER MARITAL SITUATION, like listening to the substance of what she has to say, other than the voice she says it in {a la Glen Beck} . . .
Or, if that's too boring, you can always talk about that war we have going in Iraq . . . who knows, maybe you can report some the "good news" that we allegedly never hear about.
And if that doesn't sell enough papers, there's always Anna Nicole . . .
To be fair, Guiliani is having the same problem.
The journalists may care Hilary's and Rudy's marital situation. I don't.
Then again, most of the mainstream media is so desperately out of touch it isn't even funny anymore.