HuffPo also has a blog from their new "medical expert"--Dr. Dean Ornish--asserting that prostate and breast cancers are "largely treatable and even reversible with diet and lifestyle changes."
Who knew? And of course if we all make these changes then we don't really need healthcare reform because we'll all be perfectly healthy. And those of you who get sick, well, you're just not trying hard enough.
Transcript of photo shoot:
"Hey folks, what’s got two thumbs and prostate cancer? This guy! Heyyy-o! Blogging suddenly doesn’t seem that important... G’night all! Please remember to tip the waitress because I won’t! *rimshot* Seriously, rimshots remind me of the cancer I am now going to be treated for... *rimshot* ENOUGH GUYS I HAVE CANCER!!!"
In other twitter news, two competing gin companies are sending me care packages. Apparently, self-pitying "Dear god, WHY AM I SOBER?" tweets get results!
mr. krismry's dad gets a sub to the weekly standard, and jeepers, they sure are cynics over there! Joseph Epstein in the July 20 number wrote that cronkite could chiefly be trusted never to say anything unpredictable or piled on with platitudes. Then mr. Epstein twisted the knife! He wrote that Cronk's tagline, 'and that's the way it is,' was a version of reality that wasn't the way it was at all. He didn't have a clue about the way it really was.
I was amazed and astounded that anyone else thought this way too!
Besides me.
@Soup: Feh. We can call it sad or depressing or whatever, but it is what it is, and to mourn the golden age when only four guys gave you the news is simply ridiculous. I'm glad I can choose between the lesser of howevermany shadeballs (in our case: two).
Quantity over quality? I'll trade two dozen of the slime balls we have now for one Cronkite. I've been having trouble for nearly 24 hours trying to think of one that even comes close.
@Soup: Woah. Let's not canonize him just yet. Cronkite did different things, served a different purpose. Also, people were less shameless. If Cronkite knew Glenn Beck would be crying on TV in fits of bi-polar rage while Jim Cramer manipulated the market based on the results of his kids' soccer games, he might've given up the whole racket and said "fuckit." It's less that he doesn't exist than the fact that his role doesn't exist.
I've heard his name thrown out there before in this type of conversation in other places, but as much as I love Stewart, he's not of the same mold. There is nothing wrong with Stewart because he's not a journalist in the purist sense and doesn't pretend to be. He's left leaning and has an agenda.
Other than when Cronkite pretty much declared the Vietnam war lost, he kept himself outside of the news and simply reported it like a journalist is supposed to do.
@Soup: Right, and there's too much projecting by outside forces for anybody to do that in a bubble. On the same token, newsreaders don't sell advertising anymore. It's our fault they don't exist. Would I want one? Yeah. Would I watch it? Probably not. Don't have the time. Do you?
@Foster Kamer: Hell fucking yes. I need less news opinion in my life and more straight up newsreading. That's a more efficient use of my time. Modern 'news' producers have their heads so far up their own asses that they think people want to be told what their opinions on the news should be. Is there a market for news commentary? Of course, but that's nearly the only thing we have to choose from.
I think there is a market for treating people like adults and they'll pay you to cut through the bullshit.
@Soup: This discussion between you guys here is cool to observe and I don't really have the knowledge of journalism necessary to get involved, except to wonder if Cronkite's break in composure while reading the news of Kennedy's death didn't change what it meant to "simply report" news "like a journalist is supposed to do" by shifting the standard of reporting -- almost imperceptibly, yet crucially -- toward a more personal discursive inflection? And wouldn't that register as a moment of -- I hate this phrase but whatever -- paradigm shift that should figure in this analysis?
@Soup: It's weird because I agree with your opinion, but since you work for Abrams, it just seems either self-promotional or ass-kissy. It's a lack of self-awareness that seems to pervade the Mediaite folk from what I can see.
In early 2002 I was teaching an English class in Madrid to young unemployed professionals (a special class sponsored by the Ministry of Labor). I showed them a clip of Cronkite talking to...I think Christianne Amanpour(? it was taped from tv). He was erudite and apoplectic at the same time going off on the how Bush and Cheney were controlling press access to the war in Afghanistan. He talked about how it was to be a war correspondent in WWII, and not in any old fart "in my day" line but really, and mournfully, lamenting the kidnapping of free speech by the Bush government. He kept saying something like...."They're stealing our history" . It was obvious that he was frail and it was a bit of an effort for him to be there, but he spoke well and movingly. This was less than 6 months after 9/11 and my students were really impressed. It gave them a sense that not everyone in the states was buying the Republican Homeland Security paranoia. When I told them that it was Cronkite who announced JFK's death, and covered the moon landing, they all immediately knew who he was. And these were people in their mid-late 20's at the time.
How fucking delirious it all is. At once you just want to toss it all aside and say "Who gives a shit?" But then you're reminded that this is the way the world works now. The world revolves around every single person separately and now the naricisists have that pale, forsaken echo of life following them around. Plop plop, fizz fizz. None if it matters.
@Helio: Exactly--Cronkite is 92; people have been talking about how awesome he is for years, not to mention the posts and articles paying tribute to him when word first came out that he was likely terminally ill. When someone dies suddenly, you haven't had your chance to gather all of your thoughts about them and articulate why they made such an impression, and you end up with a new article every time some journalist or blogger suddenly remembers that time they bumped into them at an airport carousel and received three words of wisdom.
I kind of love how a post about Cronkite's death was edited two or three times after being published to include additional (presumably newly-discovered) information.
@mattchew03: Nothing new to see here post-draft other than the pictures I posted incorrectly and some sentences I forgot to complete. Whoops! Oh, and Peter Feld's article went up but I couldn't find the link. So there's that.We good?
@Foster Kamer: I think you misunderstood my comment (and I apologize if I mistook the edits for additions instead of corrections). The point I was trying to make is that it was sort of cool and ironic that posts like this (or any blog post/news story) can be edited or added to instantaneously and without much -- if any -- consequence, whereas Cronkite and his colleagues would have had to wait an entire day to do the equivalent.
08/12/09
08/11/09
Who knew? And of course if we all make these changes then we don't really need healthcare reform because we'll all be perfectly healthy. And those of you who get sick, well, you're just not trying hard enough.
08/11/09
"Hey folks, what’s got two thumbs and prostate cancer? This guy! Heyyy-o! Blogging suddenly doesn’t seem that important... G’night all! Please remember to tip the waitress because I won’t! *rimshot* Seriously, rimshots remind me of the cancer I am now going to be treated for... *rimshot* ENOUGH GUYS I HAVE CANCER!!!"
08/11/09
07/22/09
07/20/09
07/18/09
I was amazed and astounded that anyone else thought this way too!
Besides me.
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
Quantity over quality? I'll trade two dozen of the slime balls we have now for one Cronkite. I've been having trouble for nearly 24 hours trying to think of one that even comes close.
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
So you're saying we should be resigned to accept mediocrity because we've lowered the bar since the days when Cronkite ruled the roost?
I don't think the current state of journalism prevents someone who aspires to hold themselves to the standards Cronkite stood for.
In fact, it would be a breath of fresh air, standing out amongst so much pollution.
07/18/09
I've heard his name thrown out there before in this type of conversation in other places, but as much as I love Stewart, he's not of the same mold. There is nothing wrong with Stewart because he's not a journalist in the purist sense and doesn't pretend to be. He's left leaning and has an agenda.
Other than when Cronkite pretty much declared the Vietnam war lost, he kept himself outside of the news and simply reported it like a journalist is supposed to do.
07/18/09
07/18/09
I think there is a market for treating people like adults and they'll pay you to cut through the bullshit.
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/19/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/19/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
Not half the newsman Cronkite was.
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/19/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
07/18/09
What a concept.
06/18/09
06/18/09
06/18/09