I watched the DNC last night. As it turns out, Al-Jazeera is giving it more coverage than ABC, NBC, or CBS. A reflection of American interest levels, to be sure, but also, I think, a reaction to how the coverage works.
I started off watching on CNN. Frankly, I was loathing the process. It was mostly their talking heads in a little echo chamber, self congratulatory, circle jerk, adding no content, and obscuring the actual process. I also found out that the major broadcast media outlets are giving it little coverage. They talked about bloggers covering the convention, and mentioned only conservative, republican, pro-war Andrew Sullivan by name, as opposed to the many other bloggers they could have mentioned. They did a bio piece on Clinton, and spent 15 seconds saying that he had done great things for the economy and international relations, then spent 5 minutes talking about lewinsky and impeachment, ending with the question “what more could he have done to prevent 9/11?”. You mean other than telling GWB to make Al Qaeda a top priority? Gee, dunno. While we’re on the topic, I wonder if anyone would like to consider who gave Osama Bin Laden his start in the first place. As well as assisting Hussein. Gotta wonder what Allawi‘s going to be doing in 10, 20 years. But don’t worry, we can always invade again.
I was chatting with
I tried to advocate the sharing of this perspective on gay.com. Apathy and/or hostility characterized about half the responses, though I did get a few people who were already watching it, and one who asked me for the website address. One of the guys told me that it didn’t matter. The government doesn’t make a difference, and has nothing to do with whether or not there are jobs (among other topics). I flamed him. I pointed out several different ways the goverment could affect such matters, and in fact, actively was affecting such matters. He blew me off and said thinking was a waste of time. I sadly believe his attitude represents an all too common perspective. It’s a pity that so few will be seeing it through anything other than a heavy filter. The DNC brought to you by CNN (and other similar media outlets) results in apathy and hostility to politics.
It was also on CSPAN without that annoying commentary (or CSPAN.com as I was watching it)
grins
I enjoyed watching the convention from the online stream from the convention web site. When prime time came around I switched over to TV, and the commentary did NOTHING but piss me off.
All they give you is bottled up, watered down blah blah blah. It wasn’t fun. After Jimmy Carter spoke, NPR actually had the Republican Chairman speak immediately after wards. He accused the DNC of using Carter as an attack dog. Carter – As – An – Attack -Dog. Right. What bullshit.
Anyway, I am sticking to the webcast too. It might not quite be inspriational on TV, but I can imagine that it would be inspirational if I was really there. The web cast is as close as it gets.
It would be pretty cool to actually be there in person. So long as I brought a book or two with. =)
For anyone reading this (since it wasn’t linked above), you can find the webcast link on the DNC Convention website: http://www.dems2004.org
i’ve been surfing around: cnn, faux, bbc, itv, cspan. the amount (and quality) of coverage found internationally is interesting. cspan is definitely my first choice for national coverage.
“Thinking is a waste of time”.
OMG, did you get his digits? He sounds like a keeper.
Scary, no?