In his column today on Washingtonpost.com, media critic Howard Kurtz reviews reactions to Kerry's speach and concludes with this shocking comment (after examining Glenn Reynolds reaction)
That's the thing about critiquing a speech--it's all so inherently subjective, like critics disagreeing over a movie. It's all the more remarkable, therefore, that the mainstream media--the folks who don't overtly come at politics from the left or the right--were nearly unanimous in hailing the speech. That, I predict, will convince people out there that it was a better speech than they might have thought.And just who does he think makes up that maintream media - the folks who don't overtly come at politics from the left or the right?
"A strong speech," said Tom Brokaw. "Working himself literally into a sweat," said Dan Rather. "A good speech . . . a tough speech," said Peter Jennings.Oh sure there are others too . . .
"An extremely tough, hawkish speech," said Jeff Greenfield.
"The best speech I've ever seen John Kerry deliver by a mile," said ABC political director Mark Halperin.
"I've never seen the man speak so well," said Joe Klein, who covered Kerry's first congressional campaign in 1972.
- The Los Angeles Times sees a strong Kerry
- The New York Times also seizes on the S-word
- The Boston Globe takes the personal approach
- The Chicago Tribune is Lincolnesque in conjuring up Kerry's essence
The non partisan mainstream press.
The folks who don't overtly come at politics from the left or the right
I guess he failed to read Daniel Okrent's admission? He probably failed to review this report on the political activities of the "mainstream media" as well.
Sort of makes you wonder what he's been smoking up there in Boston.