I consider myself a Lib Dem, and I can't say I loved Reagan. But how many times in our lifetimes will US Presidents die? The lengthy coverage seems justified to me.

Kevin McCullough's column didn't seem to me to give any evidence that "...elite media...is going nuts at the nation's reaction to Ronald Reagan...." His poll seems disrespectful and...well...stupid. If there's cynicism going on, then I think it's McCullough's. In my opinion he seems to be using the death of President Reagan to jab at political opponents.

Here's my question: Honestly, what do you think Nancy Reagan would think of McCullough's column or his poll in this time of mourning for her husband?

Posted by: Tom at June 11, 2004 08:29 AM

We all are tempted to politicize events in the media. But this is significant to note Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw's reaction; it tells us they want the limelight to shine where THEY want it to shine, and when that decision is taken away from them, they just don’t like it.

Factor in the internet as a new tool we are using to get information, and these egocentric babyboomers get a little pouty.

We Americans determine what news and information we want, not Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. That’s the way it should be. Fair enough?

Posted by: Michael Gallaugher at June 11, 2004 12:28 PM

Michael, many good thoughts in what you say, and let me comment. I agree with you that we all are tempted to politicize events in the media. But I want to make my point again that we should restrain from politicizing Reagan's passing for at least a reasonable time. Death of a former President is a major solemn occassion. Ethics framework for the next week or two: Before you write or say anything about President Reagan ask yourself, "What would Nancy Reagan say about what I'm about to write?"

Check out what I think is the original Rather/Brokaw story. (I think I went to the story directly with this link, not having to register with the Philadelphia Inquirer.)

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/entertainment/8865169.htm?1c

Rather's main point appears to be what he feels is the problem of "herd journalism"---the idea that the media begins to focus on one thing and can't get off of it: "Rather... points to 'herd journalism' as the driving force in the Reagan coverage...'Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly. Nationally, the herd has grown tremendously.'

Brokaw seems to follow up on that point: "'I think just about everything is over-covered these days,' says Brokaw, 64. 'The spectrum is so crowded. With all the cable networks, it begins to have a "video wall" feeling to it.'"

But isn't the complaint of "herd journalism" what so many Republicans also complain about when it comes to the Iraq War (which seems to be dragging down all of Bush's poll numbers)? Like the "herd journalism" on all the problems in Iraq, rather than the good things that have happened? Or remember when you guys were worried about the focus on Bush's National Guard Service for weeks on end?

In other words, Republicans like herd journalism when it focuses on what they see as good things (Reagan's legacy), and dislike it when it focuses on what they see as Republican negatives (Abu Ghraib and Bush's National Guard AWOL issues).

Of course we Dems are the same way. We're no angels. We HATED all those stories week after week of Kerry and tossing away the war medals. But loved it when week after week the media beat up Bush's National Guard record.

Regarding your thought, "We Americans determine what news and information we want, not Dan Rather or Tom Brokaw. That’s the way it should be. Fair enough?"

I think I know what you mean, but can only partially agree. Americans want "Fear Factor," Christine Aguillera, and the National Enquirer. Can't someone help lead us out of the wasteland?

But for, say, two weeks let's not politicize President Reagan's passing?

Posted by: Tom at June 11, 2004 04:22 PM