Yflyer

I was disappointed that Farah Fawcett's death wa so under-reported. Her passing was lost in the media preoccupation with SC governor Mark Sanford, then entertainer Michael Jackson.

She waged such a valiant battle against cancer which should stand as a witness for all of us. My point of view is as a cancer survivor, so this is very personal to me.

martha

It's a bit reminiscent of the day that Mother Teresa and Princess Diana both died. Mother Teresa barely got a mention in the press. The notoriety of one often outshines the worthiness of the other. And before anyone starts flaming, yes I understand that worthiness is subjective.

Yflyer

I agree, but to try to bring this into the objective, I think that those who try to do something positive for others ought to be better recognized. Farah probably motivated many people to seek screenings that may have saved their lives. Michael Jackson, at least for part of his life, provided us with some of the most memorable tunes. But Mark Sanford (remember I am writing "y'alls" from SC) just disgraced his elected office.

I guess fame comes in all forms.

martha

Don't misunderstand. I'm agreeing with you. Just as I thought Mother Teresa's lifelong work and dedication to a difficult cause should have been the lead news story that day. Bare minimum, how about equal time for all except maybe Sanford who seems more appropriate for the front of the National Enquirer. I think unless you live in S.C., that situation is of miniscule importance to the rest of the country.

DrCloud

^ Why we're so mesmerized by the peccadillos of people like Sanford baffles me. So what? Who cares? (Apparently enough people care to make it "news.")

I will say that this sort of thing provides for amusement. For example, there was a great editorial cartoon in the Ft. Lauderdale paper this morning, with a flag-wrapped Republican voter exclaiming, outraged, "What!?? In this economy, he outsourced that?!!"

But that this kind of story gets in the way of real news is a true shame. HPH

Yflyer

Sorry, Martha.

I knew you were agreeing with my first post, and my second post did not come out right. I tried to cut it too finely between subjective and objective views.

Also, it is nice to hear that the rest of you could care less about Mark Sanford -- he's just such an embarrassment to those of us who live here.

tof

Hi, Martha...good to c u posting.

I guess the television programming you describe is just one of the shortcomings of a free market system. The programmers program for ratings rather than merit, which means the content is just a reflection of the interests of our society. I only hope this is a manifestation of the can't-look-away-from-the-ten-car-pile-up phenomenon than evidence of widespread neurosis.

I'm really with you on the whole Jon and Kate thing. Enough, already.

My biggest pet peeve along these lines is the interview with the loved ones. I am repulsed by the media's need to pump relatives and friends of victims for every emotional detail.

gomarlins3

That about covers it.

dlq04

It's not rocket science........... "entertainment" is the USA's number 1 product; hell, we don't produce hardly anything else except food and drugs.