The next time you hear about another round of layoffs at a TV news division, the closing of a bureau, the decision not to cover a foreign story with full force, remember this week of silliness in April. Remember the millions of dollars, hundreds of staff and hours of coverage spent on a wedding in London when crises around the globe and here at home festered. Remember the unseemly pas de deux between the press and a reality TV show huckster peddling racially-fraught falsehoods, as both interviewers and the interviewee seek a bump in ratings. And then please take a moment to remember the eight American soldiers and one contractor killed by an Afghan soldier at the Kabul airport in a war too easily forgotten. Remember the hundreds likely being killed in Syria and Libya, not to mention the death and unrest plaguing countries like the Ivory Coast, which almost never earn more than a mention on our most-watched newscasts. Remember those who have the least amongst us, struggling after more than a year of unemployment, a long commute they can no longer afford, or the diagnosis of a medical condition that could kill them and bankrupt their family. The networks couldn't ignore the devastating storms that killed hundreds in the South, but you had the odd juxtaposition of that news being delivered by anchors sitting in front of Buckingham Palace. There's always the question, is the audience chasing the news or the news chasing an audience? I have nothing against the royals or their wedding. It is a legitimate news story, a big event for one of America's most stalwart allies. We have had a lot of bad news lately, and if you are someone who finds this diversion interesting and exciting, then I think that's great. What bothers me is the hypocrisy. The idea that we can't afford to throw resources at an important foreign story, but can afford to spend this kind of money on a story like the royal wedding is just plain wrong. The idea that we can't break into regularly-scheduled programming for an address by the president is wrong as well. When the topic was the "Birther Story" (better referred from here on out by the first letters of those two words), the networks jumped right in. As a journalist, you like to be the one asking the questions. But it's time that some of our news executives gave some answers of their own. Dan Rather is the managing editor and global correspondent for Dan Rather Reports, which airs Tuesdays on HDNet at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. ET
Why you no happy your master has a new woman for bed playing Why you no good slave I will report you for whipping I will get more food to eat because I will be good for my master
They spend more money, tax money, on presidential inaugurations than they do on a royal wedding. Also, think about the redistribution of wealth, capitalism style, that goes on when they sew up that $400K + wedding dress.
You really need to stop watching MSNBC man. That is your problem. I'm not saying to quit cold turkey, you might get that tingly sensation Chris Matthews has. Just do it gradually, maybe start with Rachael Maddow and work your way down.
I don't think all parts of your criticism are fair. Royalty stuff sells papers (and coffee mugs, and t-shirts) like hotcakes. It is a sound business decision to cover it. I just wish one of the local journalists had asked me on camera what I thought of the royal wedding... I would have said, "well, I'm American, we kill royalty." ; )
It's not "news." It's a reality show... Survivor... American Idol... Royal Wedding. They're all the same.
should i upgrade to your favorite news station,fox news? sorry to bust your bubble but once again you are wrong. i dont watch news opinion shows.too annoying. besides i dont think dan rather is on msnbc. will you ever get anything right?
Actually you are wrong as well. I watch more CNN then any other network. Dan Rather? Seriously? The guy who fabricates news stories? Oh dear God.