Is NBC obsolete and irrelevent?

So what's going on over at NBC? And, for all the excitement, who really cares? With 300 TV channels these days, it's quite easy to simply flick the channel and watch something better.

The Today show is still the most respected morning news program, although that not because of Matt Lauers irrelevant attacks on John McCain regarding quotes from the book "Game Change." Recently, Matt had McCain on his program (you can see the exchange here), and instead of asking him relevant questions, he said, "So, is it true in that in your presidential run in 2008 your team failed to investigate Sarah Palin?"

"McCain said, "Um, Matt, that's irrelevant. That happened two years ago. Today we have two wars brewing. Could you ask a relevant questions." Okay, so that's not exactly how the q and a went, but I'm not far off.

He also wasted time asking him what he thought about Senator Reid, and McCain basically said this conversation is irrelevent. Yet he didn't, he played along. Matt said, "People are saying we can't succeed in Afghanistan." McCain said, "Ahhh, Matt, they said that about Iraq too, and we succeeded their because we had confidence and courage to stay the course."

The Today show is good for fluff news, but when it comes to substance, people wait until the evening opinion shows for that. I would have said CNN, yet people are not tuning to CNN for their news either, they are tuning to Fox opinion shows. For the news, most people tune into the new boob tube -- the Internet.

In the morning, I think people simply put up with Matt Lauers irrelevant political questions because they don't watch that show to pick up their political views, they watch it to learn the four best pieces of advice to stick to new year resolutions. They watch the Today show to learn what the seven safest toys are for 2010. They watch it to see what the latest cooking advice is.

Kieth Oberman is the highest rated show on MSNBC, and it fares no better than the third showing of Bill O'Reilly's "The O'Reilly Factor," at 4:00 in the morning. So, obviously, few click on MSNBC for any relevant news and opinion.

Besides, O'Reilly became successful because his quest is to keep an eye on the powerful in this nation to make sure they aren't screwing us. The mission of Oberman is obviously to create another Satellite for the democratic national committee (DNC) to go along with CBS, ABC and, ahem, NBC.

Another satellite for the DNC is the New York Times, and this once prestigious newspaper has seen its viewership and profits tank big time in recent years. That is because it has lost its relevance too. There was a time that what was on the front page of the Times were also the lead stories on NBC, ABC and CBS.

Thus, all the news came from New York, whether it was true or not. And, as we all know, Walter Cronkite, the once most popular man in the world, was a big time liberal. So, my mom and dad had no choice but to watch a slanted news cast.

Today, however, with the advent of now news that can come from folks like you and I, we can get the accurate news and we can get it now. We get it on the Internet. Some actually get the news splashed on their pagers or iphones via text messages.

So, the New York Times is irrelevant to the new generation. Once the old generation fades away, the New York Times and all the little newspapers that rely on it (including the three major networks) will go the way of the Rocky Mountain News.

CNN is tanking because it is sticking to the old fashion news program, which is to have slanted and biased reporters write the news, and throw it at us as though it is news. Granted, CNN has gotten better over the years. Yet, that doesn't matter. What CNN doesn't get is that people don't need CNN for the news.

Fox figured this out. Fox doesn't just rehash the same old news and b.s. of the New York Times. Fox doesn't rehash what good folks like you and I can learn on the Internet. Fox has opinion shows, and news programmers who at least try to show the news from various angles as to not offend those of opposing viewpoints.

Thus, Fox is leading the cable news race. Yes, it is true some programs on Fox seem to be slanted one way or another, yet Fox has a real and documented following of liberal Americans. This is while NBC is obviously as slanted as Walter Cronkite (of whom my parents had no choice but to watch), my generation has free roam of all those 300 cable networks -- and a remote control.

The whole purpose of Matt Lauer is to take the opportunity to trash Sarah Palin becuase she had view he doesn't agree with. The same is true of Kieth Oberman on MSNBC, and perhaps even the New York Times and CNN. People have caught on to this.

And with Conan O'brein being kicked off the tonight show after only 6 months, will the one time late night ratings winners finally be irrelevent at night too? It seems someone is making some bad decisions at NBC.

So, with the advent of news from all angles, 300 cable networks, and the remote control, it is my hypothesis that NBC and it's DNC satellites are now pretty much obsolete and irrelevant.

He's in harms way, the Times wants you to know

In the run up to war in 2003 many critics to the idea of combat wondered if George W. Bush had a son or a daughter in the military at the time would he have made the same decision he ended up making. Would he have put his own son's life on the line?

He proclaimed that it was not an easy decision, and that the loss of life was something he thought about every day, even prayed about. He said, by far, that going to war was the most difficult decision he had ever made in his life.

John McCain, on the other hand, does have a son in the military. In fact, according to "McCain Is Vocal on War, but Silent on Son’s Service" in the April 6, 2008, edition of nytimes.com. John McCain has a son who is 19, in Iraq, and a lance corporal in the marines.

The article contends that while McCain has been an ardent supporter of the war and of the troops and their ability to assist the Iraqis bring stability to Iraq and, ultimately, the entire region. He has made little mention of the fact that he has a son about to be deployed over there and, presumably, in harms way.

Of course, McCain, according the the article, didn't even chose to be interviewed for the article the Times posted. In fact, McCain didn't' even want the article to be published, as, per the article itself, McCain does not want his son to become a target while he is in Iraq.

However, the Times seems to have little scruples in this area, as we well know now, they have released top secret information on many other areas and placed individuals in danger. Wasn't' it the times who released information about top secret military prisons in Europe that no one was supposed to know about for military reasons?

And, wasn't it the times who released information about the government program to spy on terrorists who were communicating with American citizens? Wasn't' it the Times who... oh never mind.

In this article, they did release this paragraph:

The McCains declined to be interviewed for this article, which the campaign requested not be published. “The McCain campaign objects strongly to this intrusion into the privacy of Senator McCain’s son,” Steve Schmidt, a campaign spokesman, said in a statement. “The children of presidential candidates in this election cycle should be afforded the same respect for their privacy that the children of President Bush and President and Senator Clinton have been afforded.” (To protect Lance Corporal McCain in case he is again deployed to a war zone, The New York Times is not publishing recent photographs of him and has withheld some details of his service).

Now, to be fair, I had no clue that McCain had a son in the military, let alone one who was deployed and had the potential to be deployed again (or perhaps is there right now) in Iraq. So, why would the Times release such an article?

I suppose the Times never ceases to amaze me. For years I have listened to conservative pundits complain about the times, and how it is the leader of bias, and I try hard not to believe what these conservatives say. But the Times keeps proving them right again and again.

While this article is absolutely fair, and it is not bias in the slightest, it was one story that didn't need to be reported. If nothing else, it makes me respect John McCain all the more, and disrespect the Times all the more.

Now, McCain has disagreed with Bush openly about his handling of the war, however he has agreed with the War in general. Now the purpose of the war is beside the purpose of this post, but one might wonder if Bush would have sent his own son to this combat zone.

I imagine he would have have. What do you think?