I would say it is. Of course he should be honored, and news specials should be devoted to him, but do we really need NONSTOP coverage of it? How many pundits can we listen to talk about him? Is it really breaking news to watch his remains being driven to the funeral home? In my opinion, this is yet another failing of today's news media.
Reagan coverage over the top?
- Thread starter MonstaThrilla
- Start date
He was the President of the United States of America and leader of the free world. While we salute our soldiers, what American would put Europe over the death of an American and historical icon?
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I was watching C-span online streaming last night and was absolutely disgusted that a couple people were whining about Reagan's death was "ruining" D-day rememberence. Like Reagan planned it to trump the D-Day ceremonies.:roll:
I saw plenty of D-Day coverage in the limited amount of network TV I watched last night and today.
CkG
I saw plenty of D-Day coverage in the limited amount of network TV I watched last night and today.
CkG
I didn't say OVER. Of course his passing should be leading news. But watching the TV news, and reading mainstream online sites, I was disappointed with the lack of coverage of not just D-Day memorials but Iraq and other usual things.
I think everyone is saluting the thousands of AMERICANS that lost their lives in D-Day, not "Europe."
I'm not surprised by the quantity of news. I think a lot of it is celebrity worship though. It's someone famous dying. Since he was very famous, he gets a lot of attention. I wish the media would be a little more objective though. They treat him like he was the editor's uncle instead of being a political figure. Let's face it, he was a political figure. To anyone who believes in the liberal media, take a look at mainstream coverage. There is nothing negative. Yeah he's dead, but you don't need to make it seem like he was all roses when he was president.
(I wish GWB was as funny as RR though. I'd much rather have RR as prez. than GWB. GWB is like some cold fundamentalist cyborg compared to RR the actor who dared used god's name in vain).
I think that Reagan's death is very important, yet it should be able to share the glory with those thousands of young Americans who lost their lives on D-Day. I don't think its too over the top yet because its not disrupting that.
I think it's been the right amount of coverage. He was our President for 8 years and was Governor of California. It's not that often that a former President passes way. D-Day is certainly a very memorable day but why is the 60th anniversary so special? 25th, 50th, 75th, etc. are key anniversary dates. Does D-Day need weekend-long coverage next year on the 61st anniversary?
But, one newscaster today said the passing of Reagan was a "national tragedy". That's stretching it, imo. It's not like Reagan was completely healthy and active and in the spotlight.
But, one newscaster today said the passing of Reagan was a "national tragedy". That's stretching it, imo. It's not like Reagan was completely healthy and active and in the spotlight.
i shall be posting a thread tha will place Reagan's legacy into perspective for those who do not remember the details of it.
i believe you will find the origins of the "Bush Doctrine" are in the "Reagan Doctrine"
the left's reaction to Reagan and the Reagan Doctrine are being repeated today in their reaction to the Bush Doctrine.
and yes, Reagan and Bush are extremely similar in policy and approach.
i shall prove it.
i believe you will find the origins of the "Bush Doctrine" are in the "Reagan Doctrine"
the left's reaction to Reagan and the Reagan Doctrine are being repeated today in their reaction to the Bush Doctrine.
and yes, Reagan and Bush are extremely similar in policy and approach.
i shall prove it.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,874
- 10,676
- 147
It is as clueless as it pointless to bitch about the amount of American media coverage that the death of Ronald Reagan has and will generate, IMHO.
And 60th anniversary or no, it is disingenous to complain that it trumps the anniversary of D-Day, as well.
Your political viewpoint aside, he was one of only 43 men ever to be President of our United States.
We have no Kingship. We should, but we don't. Therefore the Presidency is our ultimate symbol of who we are as a people and as a nation. This is where the confusion comes in.
In England the Prime Minister is a politician, and a working one at that, who must descend into Parliament without ceremony and defend his policies on a regular basis before an active and vocal oppostition.
For the ceremonial unity of the nation, the Brits have the Royal family.
In America, the office of the Presidency must serve these dual purposes, causing it to often do scant justice to both.
Only the most idiot partisan few would hold that George Bush would be the best candidate to handle the job of a working Prime Minister. He'd be badly exposed during the first five minutes of any active English style debate.
Fewer still would seriously hold that, say, Richard Nixon served well as our national symbol of who we are as a nation.
You see what I mean? The schizophrenic nature of our Presidency has served not served us well. Working politicians are not best equipped to be inclusive national symbols, and those candidates chosen for their symbolic qualities often do not make good working politicians.
How many companies would thrive if the position of CEO were a popularity contest?
Ronald Reagan should have been our King. He would have made a great one. George Bush is the prototypical likable idiot Prince. As such, more Americans could warmly endorse him.
It is Ronald Reagan as the symbol of America, and therefore America herself, that we will celebrate during the coming days and weeks. This is entirely appropriate.
It is Ronald Reagan the (for quite a few of us) disastrous and deluded politician whom others will begrudge this celebration.
I, personally don't mind one damn bit, for I am able to seperate one from the other.
And 60th anniversary or no, it is disingenous to complain that it trumps the anniversary of D-Day, as well.
Your political viewpoint aside, he was one of only 43 men ever to be President of our United States.
We have no Kingship. We should, but we don't. Therefore the Presidency is our ultimate symbol of who we are as a people and as a nation. This is where the confusion comes in.
In England the Prime Minister is a politician, and a working one at that, who must descend into Parliament without ceremony and defend his policies on a regular basis before an active and vocal oppostition.
For the ceremonial unity of the nation, the Brits have the Royal family.
In America, the office of the Presidency must serve these dual purposes, causing it to often do scant justice to both.
Only the most idiot partisan few would hold that George Bush would be the best candidate to handle the job of a working Prime Minister. He'd be badly exposed during the first five minutes of any active English style debate.
Fewer still would seriously hold that, say, Richard Nixon served well as our national symbol of who we are as a nation.
You see what I mean? The schizophrenic nature of our Presidency has served not served us well. Working politicians are not best equipped to be inclusive national symbols, and those candidates chosen for their symbolic qualities often do not make good working politicians.
How many companies would thrive if the position of CEO were a popularity contest?
Ronald Reagan should have been our King. He would have made a great one. George Bush is the prototypical likable idiot Prince. As such, more Americans could warmly endorse him.
It is Ronald Reagan as the symbol of America, and therefore America herself, that we will celebrate during the coming days and weeks. This is entirely appropriate.
It is Ronald Reagan the (for quite a few of us) disastrous and deluded politician whom others will begrudge this celebration.
I, personally don't mind one damn bit, for I am able to seperate one from the other.
Heartsurgeon, you're over the top man. And thats not a compliment. I vividly remember Reagan's time in office, and it wasn't all rosy either. He was buoyed initially by getting the hostages back and by getting shot - and this was entirely the doing of the Carter administration and Hinkley, respectively. Reagan tripled the debt - mind you, this spending did put the USSR out of business. Unlike Bush, Reagan was an excellent communicator, extremely charismatic and seemed very presidential. Unfortunately, like Bush, he was an idealogue who was not quick on his feet with details (he is famously known for his heavy reliance on cue cards - he once had to have his wife whisper an important policy position in his ear as he could not remeber) and did not command the intellectual respect of his peers (other than Brian Mulroney in Canada who kissed his ass in many pathetic national diplays). Having said this, I'd take Reagan again anyday over Bush for the simple fact that Reagan was an optimist and very much conveyed the fact that he was a decent human being at heart. Bush is none of this.
I don't think we need a symbol of the state like a King or a president (in a parliamentary system). If the people are the sovereign, they should be the symbol.
The Reagan thing has an element that bothers me like the Lady Di thing or any celebrity/royalty worship. They're just people. When they die, it means as much to me as the average person dying, no more. Of course the presidency is a little different and that's why I said "element." I think Reagan's interesting as a historical figure, not as someone who is to be worshipped like an American royalty or JFK jr (nothing against jfk jr but hopefully you get my point).
Reagan isn't being covered so much because people are so sad over his death. It isn't about greif. When a president dies, traditionally people will start discussing their life and how they did as president.
Reagan is especially important because he led America through a decade in which many things changed, and thus he was held responsible for them. Now that he has died we can look back and discuss the impact he made on the world.
Think of it as people finishing reading the book of Ronald Reagan, and now that they're done with it they can discuss what it was about.
My initial reaction was that it was unfortunate that it had to happen so close to D-Day, but Reagan was an incredible President for the US, and deserves to be remembered also.
I'd agree with you, but everything I've seen has been adoring of him. That doesn't remind me of reading a book about our times under him. Iran-contra not being covered is just one example. And it seems like a lot of people on this board are also concerned about the personal aspect (otherwise they wouldn't be so upset about discussions about his presidency).
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
"Reagan coverage over the top?"
The media gave about the same percentage of air time when LBJ, Nixon, Truman, and Eisenhower died.
The media gave about the same percentage of air time when LBJ, Nixon, Truman, and Eisenhower died.
You've been around!
Did they say nice things about Nixon or did they remind people about Watergate?
From the coverage I have seen detailing Regan's presidency (I was a tad to young to care about it during its time) I see your point and I agree with you, I can defineitely see the similarities. But, there is one huge difference that I also see - execution. Reagan achieved most of his goals through negotiation or diplomatic means while Bush started a war and occupation to try to achieve nearly all of his. Along with the other subtle but significant differences Bush really strikes me as a wannabe who is trying to imitate a decent character but is getting the execution horrbily wrong. It's like Bush is incapable of the finesse Reagan seemed to have, like a hammer trying to imitate a scalpel. I think Reagan's kids even took great exception to Bush being compared to Reagan.
And yes, I think the coverage has been too extreme. The man certainly deserves his due, but the world didn't stop turning when he passed. There is other news that deserves its due as well.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
I said about the right amount of coverage (so far). Reagan's passing is a newsworthy event that happened now, versus a celebration of something that happened sixty years ago.
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who never voted for Reagan and who had uncles who participated in WWII combat, including the invasion of Europe.
Given the media's tendency to beat a story into the ground (remember when JFK, Jr. died) I fully expect the coverage to go over the top in the next few days.
I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who never voted for Reagan and who had uncles who participated in WWII combat, including the invasion of Europe.
Given the media's tendency to beat a story into the ground (remember when JFK, Jr. died) I fully expect the coverage to go over the top in the next few days.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter