The talking head model of news broadcasting and newspaper editorializing / reporting leaves a lot to be desired. Secondhand news that is pre-digested by someone who "knows what you should hear" is no substitute for first-hand exposure to the source.
I watched the Democratic National Convention on CNN while Nancy Pelosi was speaking. Did CNN give coverage of Nancy’s speech? Not when I was watching. The talking heads were busy interviewing Governor Tim Kaine, who could have been given airtime at another time.
Nancy Pelosi may have had something vitally important to say and I only got to hear a meaningless talking head interview. I may or may not agree with her, but I can decide for myself if I hear what she has to say.
I watched another talking head interview the Olympic Volleyball champions after their victory and all the interviewer could ask about was how one of the girls had disposed of her mother’s ashes. It was so satisfying to see one of the girls take the microphone from the interviewer’s hand and use it to give a heartfelt thanks to President Bush for his support.
After watching Sarah Palin last night on C-Span, I realized that we need fewer talking heads sticking their faces in front of important news. I was fascinated with the uninterrupted coverage of the speakers who preceded her on stage.
Good. bad, indifferent or smashing, we got to hear it all on C-Span. No Blitzer, Geraldo, or Cooper adulteration or spin. Just a straight feed from the Republican National Convention to our living room.
We could see and hear what was said and could make up our own minds as to what it all meant.
I will be watching the rest of the campaign on C-Span and on the Internet.
I like news without the added ingredients and opinions hidden as news.
What a candidate says and how they say it conveys more to me than hours of post speech "analysis" by journalists who each have an axe to grind and airtime to sell.
(The preceeding is my personal opinion and is based on my personal observations. Your experience and mileage may vary.)