Silence is Golden

Drudge is currently blaring that Fox News nuked both CNN and MSNBC in coverage of the Reagan funeral. That instantly suggests that, aha!, all the Reaganites tuned to the official network of the GOP. But I submit something else was at work.

The Fox coverage knew when to shut up. This is in stark contrast to, say, Wolf Blitzer, who, in a previous life, must've been an annoying AM disc jockey who talked into and out of every decent song he ever played. I'm pretty sure Wolf described how the color guard laced their boots, but as I was having an aneurysm at the time, the details are sketchy.

The interesting thing to ponder is whether Fox's built-in reverence for the Gipper -- and there is nothing wrong with that -- dampened the urge to fill the broadcast with interpretation. Conversely, the other nets' subliminal belief that the deification proceedings needed to be "filtered" may well have prodded them to fill the air with yammerings. Whatever the cause, the verbose coverage was objectively inferior.

The lesson? That when we next have one of these deals, and every 30 years or more sounds about right, let's just be quiet and remember Bill Clinton.

Comments

[j]

Perhaps another lesson is that the only time Fox News is superior, or worth watching at all, is when none of their broadcasters are talking.

[Paul Z]

No question the silence was Golden. In skipping around the dial, it was a great relief to hear just the quiet clicking of shoes and sotto voce military commands instead of Chris Matthews' aggravating and incessant chatter.

[JDM]

I didn't watch, but did Chris Matthews actually cover it for MSNBC? Jesus. Was Charles Nelson Reilly unavailable?

[Brennan Stout]

I was scanning the channels. Only C-SPAN was more silent than Fox News. CBS and NBC were terrible, though, they did have some exclusive commentary from biographers.

[Bob]

Well, I watched ABC, and somehow Peter Jennings managed to insert a Rodney King reference into his logorrhea. Didn't Rodney get the crap beat out of him during the Bush I administration?

The subtle suggestion is that everything bad that's happened since 1988 is Ronnie's fault.

[Paul]

I agree... when Clinton goes, I don't need a rehash of his legacy, for good or for bad.

[Paul]

I agree... when Clinton goes, I don't need a rehash of his legacy, for good or for bad.

[Gadfly]

I watched for hours the C-Span coverage of people filing past the casket and the military rituals that went with it. Kind of like watching an aquarium. Peaceful and respectful, without someone else filtering it.

[Ken Layne]

Jeff, you may have missed Fox News' closed-caption coverage of Fox News' brief experiment with silence, such as this one captured by Wonkette:

"Sometimes a moment calls for silence. And the only response is silence. You see Nancy Reagan there, standing in silence. This is one of those times when silence is called upon. We are going to let the images speak for themselves with silence. . . [Silence]. . . [Silence] . . . You are watching continuing coverage here on Fox. As we bid farewell to President Ronald Reagan. . . a somber scene, felt in the silence."

[Fred]

The real question is when will we stop having sports broadcasters telling us what we can see with our own eyes?

[Ray]

I gave up on television completely about eight years ago but from what I'm hearing from everyone else (and witnessing in the newspaper and on the radio) is that the media couldn't help themselves from offering one snipe at Reagan for every two compliments.

It would go something like "Yes, President Reagan was a great guy, loved by all, despite his policies."

The adoration for Reagan obviously transcended party lines and thus you have everyone turning off CNN & Co and tuning in to Fox.

If these transient type politicos like Fox so much in this instance, why doesn't Fox always win by such a large margin?

The most recent Pew survey showed that self described independents and liberals watch and read far less news and current events material. So it is reasonable to assume that those who made up the extra ratings margin for Fox's funeral coverage are not tuning in to any or little news under normal circumstances.

So instead of Survivor X or Queer Eyes for Your Priest or whatever, everyone watched the most objective presentation of the funeral.

[jat]

Fred:

Waay back in the mid-80s I recall that NBC experimented with an announcerless NFL game (one team was the Dolphins, I think). It was lovely.

Now, I wonder when we'll get alternate audio feeds from an NFL Extreme cablecast or somesuch, that'll have commentary as fans would actually do it:

"What the fuck? That was third-and-eight, dipshit. What the fuck kinda call was that?"

"Right, Vern. I'd fire that silly bastard at halftime."

"Damn straight."

"Whoa! Lookit those tits!"

"Where?"

"There, numb-sack."

"Gimme a beer."

"Fuck you."

"Fumble!"

[Mitch]

Does anybody have the inside scoop on cable news ratings? I was under the impression that Fox was thrashing CNN (there was a recent Wall Street Journal article about advertising rates that claimed this, and that is not the only place I have heard this) but in Midtown Manhattan both Fox and CNN have huge banners trumpeting a ratings triumph. CNN seems to be claiming that "more Americans watch CNN" than any other station; is this because CNN is in more markets, so more people watch them nationwide, even if in markets where Fox competes with CNN Fox has a higher number of viewers?

[Ray]

I don't have hard numbers but from everything I've heard, Fox is thrashing CNN though CNN is in more households.

Perhaps CNN can claim some kind of statistical triumph through that but I've heard news on individual shows and CNN is simply getting beaten.

The big story for this funeral though was that Fox scored higher than CNN and MSNBC combined which is of course higher than normal.

[MALAK]

When Clinton goes, I plan to honor his memory in the only logical fashion: I'm going to have an affair with a much younger woman, and then lie through my teeth about it . . .

[John]

Maybe we could have Fox, or better yet CSPAN cover the Olympics this summer. All of news and sports coverage now is about newbabes who go hired for the work they do on their back masquarading as condescending elites telling us that we, the viewers, are too stupid to understand or care about what is going on in front of us, so we have to be guided and told what is going on and why its important because the pole vaulter from Uzbekistan's grandmother died this spring. UGH!!!

[Ron Hardin]

John & Ken (KFI, radio) had good commentary; John was never far from making an irreverent remark, though he restrained himself. That edge kept him from serving as interpreter for the obvious and made the commentary tolerable. So it's not commentary that's objectionable, but condescending commentary.

But let's face it. If you're watching TV, you're a moron and need condescending help. You see I, at least, am not patronizing you. Tough love.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

jat:

That would be brilliant. I'm not much of sports fan, but I would definitely tune in if there were crazy feeds like that. Maybe they could have rotating feeds with other crazy commentators: crack-head homeless guys, asian guys who can hardly speak english, etc..

[dhex]

malak - and in 30 years you can look forward to a bunch of fuckwits telling you you're a very bad person for making fun of a dead guy. 🙂

[John]

I got sick of all the networks, Fox included, insisting on filling up quiet moments with mindless blather.

Thank God for C-SPAN, which did a much better job than any of the broadcast networks.

[joseph]

Faux doesn't give news, it gives right-wing bias. In this case, it was what they didn't say.

The news is what Peter Jennings says.

[Douglas Fletcher]

"...let's just be quiet and remember Bill Clinton..."

Clinton is such a windbag he'll have trouble keeping quiet even at his own funeral.

[Rick Laredo]

"The news is what Peter Jennings says."
Unfortunately some Americans believe this.
What a shame. /R

[Evan Williams]

Bloody hell, I don't know how they finally got E.D. Hill to shut her fuggin yap, but it must have taken alot of drugs. The monday after Reagan died, that twit's head was about to explode, she was so angry. Why? Oh, well, the Times did an obit/edit on Reagan that was critical of his presidency. Oh, man, how DARE someone disrespect Ronny! She was goin off...god that was funny. The rest of the week was probably a Reagan lovefest, so I naturally refrained from normal TV viewing. As long as you don't preempt Deadwood, I'm cool.

Lew Rockwell said it best: "Did someone sneeze in here? Oh, Reagan Bless You."

[elares]

All the channels had GREAT coverage when the mute feature was activated.

[Josh]

I think it's "More Americans Trust CNN," because CNN has marginally higher "I don't think everything I see on Network X is a lie" numbers.

[TFH Brigade]

Holy Rothbard, Lew is bitching about turning a man into a Golden Calf?

Anyone else see the irony?

[Bo]

What I watched the Reagan "coverage" over lunch last week was on Fox precisely for the silence. Same with the 9/11 memorial a while back. Peter Jennings just would not shut up.

[MALAK]

dhex: It beats being accused of making 'fun' WITH a dead guy . . .