badmigraine 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 Used to be, the fiction was that you were supposed to believe what you saw... Then, after some movies like "Network" came out exposing the idiot scripts behind everything and a new, media-savvy generation grew up, you were supposed to take everything with a grain of salt, but I think you were still supposed to watch it. Now it's much later, and look what we get...the following text appearing on the Drudge Report site: "EMOTIONAL GEN. WES CLARK '60 MINS II' DAN RATHER INTERVIEW TONIGHT: MISTS UP, TEAR FORMS, DOES NOT FALL DOWN CHEEK; A SIDE OF HIM WE HAVE NEVER SEEN, SOURCES TELL DRUDGE... DEM CANDIDATE ASKED ABOUT KOSOVO AND CLEANSING. CBS CAMERA GOES FOR CLOSE-UP. TEARS, NO CRYING; SHOWS PICTURES OF DEAD CHILDREN... DEVELOPING..." I really don't know what to make of it. What is this? Do they now just publish their post-it notes of what they used to hope to script, stage and put on the big screen? Is it that everybody knows it's all fake infotainment puffery and broad-brush, lowest-common-denominator button-pushing...especially with elections coming up...so that it's better for everyone if they just print a telegraphic, shorthand account of what we were supposed to see and ahem feel? WTF?!?! I just don't get it. But I'm glad I saw it. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 I think I caught the mood there migs, but not the factual content. Wotcha talking about then? Did Wes (he's the straw we all want clutch) Clark cry or not? Link to post Share on other sites
badmigraine 0 Posted November 21, 2003 Author Share Posted November 21, 2003 Sorry, Ocean, I didn't make it clear. The section in CAPITAL LETTERS was found on the Drudge Report news site... I simply pasted it in and gave my reaction to it! I'll go back and edit so it's clearer! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts