Obama writes a piece in the Washington Post and the media reaction is dead silence.
Obama talks to Congressional Democrats and every outlet carries it.
Conclusion: the media can’t read. If there is no audio and/or video, the media doesn’t know it happened.
On-line Opinion Magazine featuring annoyed rumblings from the leading edge of the Baby Boom firmly tied to a reality-based world.
Established: 21 November 2004
The opinions expressed in Comments are those of the individuals making them. Truly absurd comments and opinions are subject to being cruelly mocked, but "flame wars" will take place on someone else's dime.
Your first comment, all comments with extensive links, and random comments that the software decides it doesn't like for no discernible reason will be held for moderation.
[Be aware that for unknown reasons the software rejects comments shorter than 15 characters, so if you want to leave a short comment fill the gap with periods ........]
2 comments
I don’t know, Bryan… marching bands don’t perform stage plays, either. The media inevitably addresses different content because it requires different presentation. Reporting on a newspaper op-ed is not easy for an intrinsically audiovisual medium.
I am inclined to fault Obama for delivering his (fairly strong) message only in a medium that few people bother to consume anymore. We may or may not be in a postpartisan era, but we are definitely in a postliterate age.
It may be that the WP gets snippy with other media outlets, but, I too thought the op-ed in the Village paper was a bad idea because of media size.
I would have thought that the problem required a speech to the nation to indicate how serious the situation is.