Obama obsession ?

[Dominick]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7994368.stm

Yes, day by day and even hour by hour, and this is the BBC. (If I hear one more word about that freaking dog, I'm going to explode).

The question is : is Obama really that important ? and the follow-up question is: if he is, what does that say about the state of politics in general ?

[partofme]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7994368.stm

Yes, day by day and even hour by hour, and this is the BBC. (If I hear one more word about that freaking dog, I'm going to explode).

The question is : is Obama really that important ? and the follow-up question is: if he is, what does that say about the state of politics in general ?

It's a off year in the U.S. for federal elections so really when it comes to politics there isn't much else to talk about other than congress and much of that has to do with how they work with Obama. Plus in their first 100 days most presidents get tons of coverage.

[Dominick]

It's a off year in the U.S. for federal elections so really when it comes to politics there isn't much else to talk about other than congress and much of that has to do with how they work with Obama. Plus in their first 100 days most presidents get tons of coverage.
For the States ok, but I've never seen this in Europe. Not even Clinton who was hugely popular here did get that amount of media attention, not even when he got a blowjob. What's even more bothering and significant is the amount of rockstar quality of the 'information'. Yeah, I think Michelle is a good looking woman too but who cares what she wears every day.
What are Obama's specific plans for Pakistan for instance. Does anyone know ? I don't, despite the overwhelming attention.

[phungus420]

The media in general play to the ratings, so a more apt question is, why do stories about Obama, especially those that are frivolous like about his dog, get ratings? :ummm:

[Michael]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7994368.stm

Yes, day by day and even hour by hour, and this is the BBC. (If I hear one more word about that freaking dog, I'm going to explode).

The question is : is Obama really that important ? and the follow-up question is: if he is, what does that say about the state of politics in general ?
Nothing new here - only your increasing awareness of the true vapidness of US media.

I certainly can tell you off the top of my head that Clinton's "First Cat" was named Mittens and GW Bush's "First Dog" was named Barney. I've seen LOTS of media coverage of these pets over the years. No more and no less than that being applied to Obama's "First Dog" - that I don't even know the name of yet, so the coverage can't be that heavy! ;)

[Michael]

The media in general play to the ratings, so a more apt question is, why do stories about Obama, especially those that are frivolous like about his dog, get ratings? :ummm:
Now this is the truly interesting issue here. Fact is, Mittens, Barney and Obama's new "First Dog" are remarkably popular with news-watchers and stories about these animals tend to get high ratings. Thus, the media pushes them.

A related example comes from our local tabloid rag (The Toronto Sun) which is notorious for color pictures on the front page and screaming headlines. Well, I recall a few years back when The Sun reported that the #1 front page for receiving the highest number of telephone complaints in all the history of the newspaper came when they showed an accident where a dog got hit by a public transit streetcar.

And just to keep perspective here, The Sun will routinely put car accidents, plane crashes and generally any gruesome photo on the front page to get your attention. The famous dog vs streetcar photo doesn't even show any blood. The Sun has published photos of some criminal gunned down laying in a pool of blood on the front page (plenty of times).

What this says to me is that people will show an extraordinary amount of pity and emotion over an unfortunate plight of an animal, but ignore the same event involving another human being. Seems odd.

[Dominick]

Nothing new here - only your increasing awareness of the true vapidness of US media.
The link is to the British BBC, the epitome of rational and neutral reporting. They didn't even have such attention for the first 100 days of Blair or Brown. This is unseen.

[Michael]

The link is to the British BBC, the epitome of rational and neutral reporting. They didn't even have such attention for the first 100 days of Blair or Brown. This is unseen.

What? That Europe has an increased interest in the US Presidency now? Yes, that appears to be new.

The coverage of the US Presidency hasn't changed one bit though. What has changed is Europe paying attention to it. BBC was just following the lead of how the US media covers the President - just like a member of the royal family.

[Michael]

The link is to the British BBC, the epitome of rational and neutral reporting. They didn't even have such attention for the first 100 days of Blair or Brown. This is unseen.
I'm certain that the number and names of each of the Queen's Corgies has graced earlier BBC news reports.

You can't compare Blair or Brown to the US President. Only the Queen is comparable in media terms to the US President. Celebrity symbol first and foremost.

[Dominick]

I'm certain that the number and names of each of the Queen's Corgies has graced earlier BBC news reports.

You can't compare Blair or Brown to the US President. Only the Queen is comparable in media terms to the US President. Celebrity symbol first and foremost.
I'm not talking about ITV or the tabloids. Those are the celebrity worshippers. The BBC is my primary news source which I read and watch daily. And given that I don't even have a beginning of a clue what "Queen's Corgies" might be, it's apparent that attention to trivial celebrity stuff is very low usually.

[Michael]

I'm not talking about ITV or the tabloids. Those are the celebrity worshippers. The BBC is my primary news source which I read and watch daily. And given that I don't even have a beginning of a clue what "Queen's Corgies" might be, it's apparent that attention to trivial celebrity stuff is very low usually.
Queen Elizabeth the Second (and a far inferior version of the first she is!) has a famous passion for dogs and horses. The "Queen's Corgies" refers to the fact that she keeps a half-dozen of this dog-breed as personal pets (probably dozens of them over the years as no doubt they are continuously replaced as they die off). The are by all accounts a horrifically behaved lot that have all the charm of a gaggle of crying babies. This ill-mannered Queen apparently dotes over them and allows them to run wild through the palace and over visitors.

This is indeed one of the reasons I refer to Her Majesty "QE II" as an insufferably vulgar middle-class bitch (of rather unimpressive breeding credentials no less!). :D

I will defend the monarchy in principle, I will never defend bourgeois mediocrity, nor frumpy old ladies in ugly dresses, especially those that are proud of keeping a harem of ill-behaved dogs! :p

<begin rant>
As far as I'm concerned, any monarch worthy of the title bloody well better parade around in ermine, purple and bejeweled crown, riding in gilded coach of four (make the damn horses white too!). Anything less is a mockery of monarchy. Frumpy dresses (and/or banker's suits) make monarchs look like the boring middle-class pretenders that they are. It is absurd - stop the charade already!
<end rant>

:)