So, today — on Ted Turner’s BIG DAY (his 25th anniversary of CNN) — news breaks of the long-held secret of Deep Throat’s identity. So to begin his spot with Turner over the quarter-century milestone, Wolf Blitzer starts off by asking him what the revelation of the identity of Deep Throat meant to him.
So The Ted replies “It means nothing to me.” He then explains that the news that interests HIM is IMPORTANT news, GLOBAL news, news having to do with WORLD HUNGER, INTERNATIONAL news. News that isn’t ANCIENT HISTORY.
But Blitzer doesn’t give up. He asks, “Isn’t there SOME news that isn’t GLOBAL that can still be very IMPORTANT?”
Turner essentially says no.
Watergate was 30 years ago.
Now, CNN’s founding was 25 years ago.
Turner describes 25-year-old details of that IMPORTANT, GLOBAL, WORLD HUNGER-RELATED, NOT ANCIENT, and INTERNATIONAL event — HIS formation of a 24-hour news service. And he presents his creation of CNN, and his OFFER to go to Iraq in that wartime, of TRULY HEROIC proportions. And when Blitzer calls him on THAT, he continues, “Well, it WOULD have been heroic if I had gone.”
Poor Ted Turner. Imagine if his silver anniversary had fallen on 9/11/01.
|
Categories: News
|
May 31st, 2005 at 11:54:07 pm
As much as I hate to stick up for Ted Turner, I think he does have a point on this issue. Nixon is dead. The Watergate scandal happened long before I was born. And the news is obsessed with some senile guy who informed reporters who are soon to be in depends themselves. Is that news? I guess, but I don’t think it’s the huge deal that the media would have us believe it is.
I’d love to hear more about what’s going on in Darfur or Afghanistan personally.
June 1st, 2005 at 12:07:57 am
Watergate is an important piece of our national history, regardless of the fact that it happened long before we were born. However, it is debatable how much this particular revelation adds to our substantive knowledge of the important issues surrounding Watergate. The mystery that was solved today wasn’t about the substance of Watergate, it was about the procedure of how the cover-up unraveled. It’s not like we just found out that Richard Nixon personally ordered the burglary (as opposed to just being heavily involved in the cover-up); now THAT would be a substantive revelation. This is just the answer to a procedural mystery that, arguably at least, became a bit larger-than-life over the years.
There is something incestuous about all the coverage, which really comes from journalists’ and political junkies’ obsession with this ultimate journalistic/political mystery. It’s very interesting news to the people reporting it, and to a select group of news consumers (myself included) who love political and journalistic “inside baseball,” but the question must be asked: Does the general public really care? And if they don’t, should they? Usually, in order for something to make the news (let alone be a top story), the answer to at least ONE of those two questions must be “yes.” In this case, I’m not sure if either one is.
I mean, a lot of non-political-junkies who lived through Watergate will surely care a little bit, but I suspect it might be the sort of mild interest that would justify an appearance on the CNN crawl or a brief mention at the end of News Night, not a day-long discussion and a front-page story in every newspaper in the country (as I’m sure this will get tomorrow).
I’m not certain, though. I’m not a member of the “general public”; I’m a political junkie with a journalism degree. So I honestly don’t know how much the average Joe Schmo in Peoria cares about this story. I just think it’s at least arguable that the media is losing perspective because this story is clearly very important and interesting to the media.
On a related note, Washington Post Joel Achenbach writes:
[A]s this big news settles in, we have to ask ourselves: Why was Deep Throat such an intriguing figure? Because he single-handedly brought down the Nixon White House? Actually, he didn’t. He played a key role, but Woodward and Bernstein today played down his importance. There were lots of other sources for their stories. And there were sources for reporters other than Woodstein, including reporters working at other news organizations.
We made a huge fetish about Deep Throat for one reason: We didn’t know his name. The most interesting thing about him was his anonymity, and Woodward/Bernstein/Bradlee’s adherence to their long-ago promise. Everyone loves a mystery.
Well, at least “everyone” in Washington, and in every newsroom in the country, and in every house where an unrepetant political junkie lives. :)
June 1st, 2005 at 2:36:47 am
I think this is a generational thing. Do you notice how few posts there are on this?
My point, though, was that Turner’s news was old news, too. Except to him. And although Turner started the first television 24-hour news, it WAS already being done on radio, by others. Driving a U.S. president to resign from office had not EVER (and hasn’t again) been done.
I want to know about Darfur, too. I don’t want to be hearing about it thirty years from now. It needs to end NOW.
June 1st, 2005 at 4:54:07 am
As much as I hate to stick up for Ted Turner, I think he does have a point on this issue. Nixon is dead. The Watergate scandal happened long before I was born. And the news is obsessed with some senile guy who informed reporters who are soon to be in depends themselves. Is that news? I guess, but I don’t think it’s the huge deal that the media would have us believe it is.
I’d love to hear more about what’s going on in Darfur or Afghanistan personally.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:07:57 am
Watergate is an important piece of our national history, regardless of the fact that it happened long before we were born. However, it is debatable how much this particular revelation adds to our substantive knowledge of the important issues surrounding Watergate. The mystery that was solved today wasn’t about the substance of Watergate, it was about the <i>procedure</i> of how the cover-up unraveled. It’s not like we just found out that Richard Nixon personally ordered the burglary (as opposed to just being heavily involved in the cover-up); now THAT would be a substantive revelation. This is just the answer to a procedural mystery that, arguably at least, became a bit larger-than-life over the years.
There <i>is</i> something incestuous about all the coverage, which really comes from journalists’ and political junkies’ obsession with this ultimate journalistic/political mystery. It’s very interesting news to the people reporting it, and to a select group of news consumers (myself included) who love political and journalistic “inside baseball,” but the question must be asked: Does the general public really care? And if they don’t, <i>should</i> they? Usually, in order for something to make the news (let alone be a top story), the answer to at least ONE of those two questions must be “yes.” In this case, I’m not sure if either one is.
I mean, a lot of non-political-junkies who lived through Watergate will surely care a <i>little</i> bit, but I suspect it might be the sort of mild interest that would justify an appearance on the CNN crawl or a brief mention at the end of <i>News Night</i>, not a day-long discussion and a front-page story in every newspaper in the country (as I’m sure this will get tomorrow).
I’m not certain, though. I’m not a member of the “general public”; I’m a political junkie with a journalism degree. So I honestly don’t know how much the average Joe Schmo in Peoria cares about this story. I just think it’s at least arguable that the media is losing perspective because this story is clearly very important and interesting <i>to the media</i>.
On a related note, <i>Washington Post</i> Joel Achenbach <a href=”http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/05/a_great_journal.html”>writes</a>:
<i>[A]s this big news settles in, we have to ask ourselves: Why was Deep Throat such an intriguing figure? Because he single-handedly brought down the Nixon White House? Actually, he didn’t. He played a key role, but Woodward and Bernstein today played down his importance. There were lots of other sources for their stories. And there were sources for reporters other than Woodstein, including reporters working at other news organizations.
We made a huge fetish about Deep Throat for one reason: We didn’t know his name. The most interesting thing about him was his anonymity, and Woodward/Bernstein/Bradlee’s adherence to their long-ago promise. Everyone loves a mystery.</i>
Well, at least “everyone” in Washington, and in every newsroom in the country, and in every house where an unrepetant political junkie lives. :)
June 1st, 2005 at 5:47:19 am
Yeah, I hear yez. I was always kind of bored with all this Ancient stuff about whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor and whether Truman could’ve avoided dropping The Bomb, I mean, like, I wasn’t even Born ’til ‘48. C’mon. Get Relevant. Forget the Potato Famine; tell me about Darfur, that’s Different. // And also about Terri Schiavo. And the Runaway Bride. And Michael Jackson. :>
June 1st, 2005 at 7:36:47 am
I think this is a generational thing. Do you notice how few posts there are on this?
My point, though, was that Turner’s news was old news, too. Except to him. And although Turner started the first television 24-hour news, it WAS already being done on radio, by others. Driving a U.S. president to resign from office had not EVER (and hasn’t again) been done.
I want to know about Darfur, too. I don’t want to be hearing about it thirty years from now. It needs to end NOW.
June 1st, 2005 at 10:47:19 am
Yeah, I hear yez. I was always kind of bored with all this Ancient stuff about whether FDR knew in advance about Pearl Harbor and whether Truman could’ve avoided dropping The Bomb, I mean, like, <i>I</i> wasn’t even <i>Born</i> ’til ‘48. C’mon. Get Relevant. Forget the Potato Famine; tell me about Darfur, that’s Different. // And also about Terri Schiavo. And the Runaway Bride. And Michael Jackson. :>
June 1st, 2005 at 12:59:46 pm
People saw Becky’s comment and decided to stay out of a family - mother-in-law/daughter-in-law - fight.
June 1st, 2005 at 5:59:46 pm
People saw Becky’s comment and decided to stay out of a family - mother-in-law/daughter-in-law - fight.