Pundit Pap for February 2, 2003
A National Disgrace
Crass coverage of Columbia catastrophe says it all about corporate media and its front-line "opinion shapers" as Sunday pundits wring their hands, fake up the sympathy and jack up the sensationalism in a cheap bid for ratings bump
by the Pundit Pap Team: Jeff Koopersmith • JJ Balzer

Feb. 2, 2003, 3 PM -- NEW YORK (APJP) -- The pundit-driven "cable news" networks and news divisions of the "big three networks" have been jockeying for the past thirty hours in a bid outdistance each other in the race for fast ratings -- and the producers, directors and talking heads that run these "news" operations have revealed themselves as self-absorbed, despicable jumpers-on to tragedy.

All over television-news-land, these so-called broadcast professionals are congratulating themselves on the less than tasteful circus that has sprung up around what is a very personal time for the families of the seven men and women who gave their lives for this nation and this planet.

Topping the list of disgraceful tastelessness was the nonstop airing of the contrails of our Space Shuttle Columbia -- for a solid 18 hours -- on FOX News Channel. Family members of the shuttle crew were unable to escape the horror of imagining what might have been going on inside that ship as it blew apart -- and were treated to a continuous
reliving of the horror with absolutely zero redeeming value as "news and information."

The redundant airing ad nauseam of the flaming space ship was followed by ludicrous "interviews" with those who found a scrap -- or a building-full -- of debris from the shuttle, and endless tape of these "finds" popped up across the broadcast spectrum.

Sensible people were moved to gather the children and take them away from television sets to protect them from what seemed to be possible close ups of one astronaut's remains.

Of course, news directors will defend this explosive diarrhea, speculation and feigned
atmosphere of compassion as "acting in the interest of the public's need to know" -- but here is the real bottom line: a small group of newsroom moguls, notably at FOX News, were disappointed that their attempts to link this disaster to terrorism went nowhere despite their continuing attempts to plant this suspicion.

A pox on all your houses

-- Jeff Koopersmith

In the wake of yet another ratings-grabbing catastrophe, all of the Sunday shows (save McLaugh-In) spent all or most of their time wringing their hands over the loss of space shuttle Columbia -- complete with ersatz gravitas from the hosts, and cloying "mourning" music replacing the usually upbeat newsy theme and bumper tunes,

We anticipated plenty of nausea-inducing, morbid hand-wringing, obnoxious speculation over the cause of the catastrophe, occasional mentions of the 1986 Challenger disaster, a reminder that one astronaut, Elan Ramon, was the "pride of Israel" (as indeed he is), expressions of sympathy astronauts' families while exploiting the deaths of their loved ones, ample mention of God, and ridiculous statements of the obvious.

All of this came to pass. But there was more. Much, much more.

Here's just a taste of the tasteless, unconscionably exploitative coverage this morning.

ABC This Weak
"The Columbia Tragedy"

Players:
George "Steph" Stephanopoulos, boyish host
Legendary astronaut and former Senator John Glenn
Former astronaut Sally Ride
Lisa Stark, ABC News corespondent at Johnson Space Center
NASA chief Sean O'Keefe
Mike Fremd, ABC News correspondent in Texas
Jim Slade and James Oberg, ABC News space consultants

In an move that was typical of this Sunday's shameless grab for viewers, ABC expanded This Weak to a full two hours of excruciating coverage -- going so far as to jettison their "exclusive" interview of British Prime Minister Tony Blair by cub reporter and backstabber George Stephanopoulos.

We stuck with it for the first hour. Some of the program appeared to be pre-taped, so we got a glimpse of Sally Ride being the first to use the buzz phrase "bad day" -- NASA jargon for an in-flight catastrophe and John Glenn praising the overall safety record of NASA and the shuttle program.

Most of the initial hand-wringing came from ABC correspondent Lisa Stark in her setup piece, following its initial focus on the possibility the left wing of the shuttle was damaged by liquid fuel tank insulation during the initial minutes of the launch. After brief mention of this speculation, we were treated to a string of facts we've heard about a thousand times in the last day interspersed with the same tired, overused clichés we heard all day yesterday. Lisa gave extra emphasis to that old favorite, "They were gone," after a snippet of the final transmission.

Steph then interviewed Sean O'Keefe, who appeared on practically every one of the big network Sunday morning shows, and -- you guessed it -- there were no headline-generating revelations, but Steph asked some truly stupid questions, including one about the possibility that the catastrophe could have been caused by anything on the ground (the only thing Steph proved is that it's all too easy to play the "terrorist" card these days, no matter how farfetched). Dull does not even begin to describe the segment, given the predictable questions, but at least George kept the morbid hand-wringing quotient on the low side -- although Steph did drag the families of the deceased astronauts into the fray with his last question to O'Keefe ("How are the families doing?").

The second news segment focused on debris recovery, with Mike Fremd reporting from Nacogdoches, Texas. As with Lisa's segment, there was a profusion of clichés: "It really is an incredible effort.... The most heartbreaking moments come when they uncover human remains.... Tragedy rained down from the sky [followed by a witness saying almost exactly the same thing]." There was the requisite mention of recovery of a scorched mission patch, and average Texans finding chunks of the shuttle on their property -- if not inside their houses and barns when it penetrated the roof.

ABC space consultant Jim Slade described the problems facing the recovery effort -- including what is likely to be far less debris and structure than had been recovered after 1986's Challenger disaster. Pointless conjecture followed: Slade thinks the debris recovery will be "inconclusive" and more evidence will come from Houston's data tapes.

James Oberg, a former NASA engineer and ABC consultant, added that visual observations, including videotapes, will be very useful to NASA's investigation (Lord knows, they've been incredibly useful to cable news channels and network news operations). Steph actually asked a somewhat intelligent question about the methodology of reconstructing the problem starting with the most obvious possible problem, and Oberg said that the methodology is in fact different. Slade amplified the point: start with a clean slate, add the clues and data, and come to a conclusion. A little later, Slade gave more egregious speculation of the program: the remaining shuttle fleet would not fly until June.

There followed the requisite feature on the seven astronauts themselves -- with plenty of focus on Israeli astronaut and national hero Elan Ramon, who had brought a drawing made by a boy in the Terezin death camp of how the earth might look like from the moon on the flight. There was also another instance of gratuitous hand-wringing and get-out-the-hanky reporting with a segment from Israel focusing on how citizens and Ramon's family are"coping with another tragedy" -- and a God reference as the correspondent reported that a commemorative medal will contain a quote from the "Book of Psalms." You'd think you were watching Oprah.

The segment with Sally Ride first focused on what happens and what astronauts observe during reentry. Ride speculated that NASA investigators are already "poring over data" from the left wing and at Steph's prompting mentioned the possibility that a piece of liquid fuel tank insulation damaged heat shielding on the left wing during launch. Steph threw in a little incredulity over the fact that neither NASA nor the shuttle crew can inspect the outside of the shuttle during orbital flight. He threw in a hackneyed speculation question: "What would you be focusing on in the days ahead?" Ride said that one lesson she took from the Challenger disaster is not to rule anything out -- she first felt it was an engine failure, but was wrong (it was a failed O-ring in a solid rocket booster).

So what did we learn about the disaster that we did not know from this morning's papers? Absolutely nothing, aside from the fact that Steph is showing a talent for infotainment from tragedy.

We switched channels after the first hour to grab a glimpse of...

Faux News Sunday

Players:
Tony "Baloney" Snow, right-winger to the max, but also one of the fastest and smartest political inquisitors on television
NASA chief Sean O'Keefe
Mohammed al Douri, Iraqi representative to the UN

We managed to miss the first couple of minutes of FNS due to technical glitches courtesy of Comcast. No surprise there. Maybe it was gremlins getting even for their refusal to air a commercial featuring Susan Sarandon and calling on the US to cool it and let UN inspectors do their thing in Iraq before rushing into war.

FOX's "tragic" music was particularly tacky, and Tony Snow turned to his first guest, Sean O'Keefe, asking the requisite questions on collecting debris and data. Tony quite cleverly asked if the loss of Columbia could be the "result of a freak accident" -- a question we did not hear elsewhere all day Sunday. This gave O'Keefe the chance to talk again about the investigative methodology. Tony claimed, somewhat sadly, that "terrorism is off the table" (that phrase a de facto admission that some at FOX News really, really were jonesing to tie The Columbia Catastrophe to Countdown: Kick Saddam's Ass).

"Would you like to see a Space Shuttle retrieve" the crew of the International Space Station? O'Keefe would like to see it -- and seems to think it might be possible if there is a chance that a thorough investigation can reveal the cause of Columbia's failure.

Tony also asked, "Is a Mars mission in the cards?" (This question would crop up on a few other Sunday shows.) O'Keefe hinted at a yes to the question, but reiterated that priority one is finding the cause of yesterday's disaster.

Tony then welcomed Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), a NASA expert and former civilian astronaut. In an echo of Steph's question to Sally Ride, Tony had him describe what reentry looks and feels like. "Would you fly again?" Nelson said yes -- as he said he did 17 years ago.

Tony then turned to the politics of NASA -- and a warning that Nelson recently issued about a failure by the Administration to fund safety upgrades. Nelson reiterated his position -- but said that the events of yesterday probably could not have been prevented. Nelson also suggested the left wing of the orbiter as the source of the disaster. Tony asked about the possibility of some sort of escape pod -- Nelson said that it is outside the realm of design possibility.

"Do you think it's time for NASA to reconsider its mission?" Nelson said that we need more astronauts to do scientific work in space -- and Mars should be a goal. Would Nelson like to see a narrow time-frame for Mars? Nelson said yes -- and talked about new technology, including an ion engine that generates accelerative gravity.

Then Tony asked a bad taste question: "Do you think Columbia seven knew what hit them?"

Oh, please, Tony -- that was tasteless, and the bottom-feeder bonehead comment of the weekend. You know better!

Tony then welcomed Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Big Texas Hair), who related eyewitness accounts from people she knew and said there would be hearings once NASA has some data -- adding that NASA must be funded (well, of course, Kay-Bob: the Johnson Space Center is in Texas). Tony raised -- how embarrassing -- the possibility that the US may have to turn to the European space program or -- horrors -- China! Hutchison does not think we should, playing to the "greatness" of America. Tony sounded concerned about the high cost of a Mars mission, but Hutchison said it is worth the scientific effort to go there. Hutchison spent a lot of time blasting the cuts to NASA's budget -- but being careful not to link them to the Columbia catastrophe. Tony glommed on to one aspect of Hutchison's comments, cueing her to talk about the national security angle to NASA. Will Smirk "call for the ambitious expansion of NASA that you want?" Hutchison hopes so.

FAUX knows where the ratings are -- and despite Tony's "devil's advocate" pose, the connotation of Tony's questioning of Hutchison indicates a pro-NASA tilt at FAUX News.

And then -- miracle of miracles! Politics and war! A REAL national issue!

Tony welcomed Mohammad al-Douri, Iraq's UN representative. Tony first pressed al Douri on the official reaction from Iraq -- and al Douri said that he felt regret for the families of the astronauts and NASA (quite a toning down of Iraqi state media celebrating the catastrophe as "Allah's wrath"). Then Tony asked what happened to all of Iraq's chemical weapons. Al Douri claimed that the bulk of them has been destroyed, and Iraq is "ready to discuss all these issues so that we can reach a final solution."

Now that answer was a headline maker -- but instead of focusing on what looks to be a huge and welcome shift in Iraqi policy, Tony rather clumsily pressed him on the weapons: where are they? Al Douri sounded irritated (hell, I would be too if I'd just made an announcement that would be guaranteed front-page news in tomorrow's issues of the world's major-city newspapers), saying that he hopes that when Blix returns to Baghdad, he will report back to the UN about their having been destroyed (avoiding specifics). Al Douri denied that Iraq has rockets that can be tipped with chemical or biological weapons. (Well, Mo, you have anything to say about those dozen-plus warheads that surfaced a couple weeks ago?) In response to specific a query by Tony, al Douri said that that Iraq has no sarin, VX or mustard gas (yeah, sure, buddy). Al Douri asserted that inspectors are trying to find something -- and they found nothing. Tony asked why Iraq does not want U2 flights as it would help prove they have no weapons. Al Douri said they'd be fine, but there are some "technical questions." So does al Douri think that Blix will get permission? Al Douri gave an evasive "we will resolve this" answer.

So what kind of guy is Saddam Hussein? Honest and faithful, said al Douri, as he reminded Tony that there were warm relations at one time between Iraq and the US -- even Rumsfeld met with Saddam! Tony's response: "Interesting, well..." Tony then asked about the possibility of exile for Saddam. "Look -- we are an independent state, we are proud of our country, we are proud of our government... we intend to preserve our independence" (in other words: get real, Tony).

Do you believe war is inevitable? Al Douri said that "is up to the United States... [differences] can be resolved peacefully" either directly or through international diplomacy.

Face the Nation

Players: Bob Schieffer, host
Sean O'Keefe
Retired astronauts Mark Brown and Bill Harwood
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-"Kitten Kevorkian")

We joined FTN late so we could catch some actual political chat over on FAUX. We caught Bob Schieffer giving O'Keefe a tough time over safety at NASA and huge budget cutbacks being a possible factor -- and O'Keefe became testy over the suggestion that NASA was not making safety the priority it should be. Right now, NASA "owes it to the families" to get to the bottom of what happened.

Mark Brown said he was "shocked" -- the emotional shock of losing friends, and the intellectual shock that there was such a catastrophe. Schieffer asked a few questions heard elsewhere this Sunday: could there have been a spacewalk to inspect the shuttle? Bill Harwood said it was not possible for a number of reasons -- including no handholds on the bottom of the shuttle. Could the crew have done anything? Brown said the bigger question is whether or not there could have been a better way to detect a problem. Schieffer asked Harwood about cutbacks in NASA budgeting, and Harwood said upgrades at all levels are called for, and the question is whether or not there is the political will to make the needed fixes. During their flights, did either astronaut feel that safety was compromised? Brown said people, not money, make the program safe, and they are very, very good -- then explained why engineers would discount the possibility that insulation would have caused damage to the left wing of Columbia during the launch (a comment that came across as a near non-sequitur).

After the break, Schieffer welcomed Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Schieffer suggested the shuttles were 'too old." Frist bragged... ahem, recounted his previous status as chairman of the Science Subcommittee, adding he was well aware of space shuttle issue, including their extended life -- a matter that must be revisited. Frist also said that he had talked with the chairs of the science and commerce committees, and independent experts must be allowed to investigate the Columbia catastrophe (unlike the 9/11/01 attacks) -- and he is confident that the investigation will be accurate and thorough. Does Tom Ridge or anyone in the administration think this is something more than an accident? Frist said no.

Schieffer's final question: are manned missions the way to go? Frist said that the seven astronauts were scientists -- and it s essential that scientists conduct experiments in space.

Schieffer's final word first focused on his immediate thoughts of seeing reports of Columbia's destruction: did terrorists do it? There then followed a dignified if somewhat hackneyed tribute to the spirit of exploration.

-- JJ Balzer

Meet the Press

Forget Impending War, It's manufactured hero and cheap emotion time!
That Tim Russert sure is a good boy. So eager to please. Such a patriotic, reverent boy. That's probably why he's establishment certified and approved to reliably handle events in a way that won't make too many waves and will dependably jump in to serve as nationalistic pom-pom boy and myth-maker at the drop of a hat, or in this case, a space shuttle.

I'm not that cynical. I certainly feel that the breakup of the space shuttle on re-entry and loss of those aboard is truly a tragedy on many levels. The lost of seven lives is never something to take lightly, nor is any loss of life. And the loss of people that were so bright, talented, and highly trained adds something to the loss. Add to that the dimension of the massive monetary loss this represents; the hundreds of millions of dollars that had been put into the lost craft, the hundreds of millions that will be spent on the recovery and investigation, and countless collateral costs, and "loss" just doesn't seem to cut it.

But there's something that sticks in my craw about it all. The media rush to perform their patently fake mourning and reverence routine. The low tones, the ceaseless rubbing our faces in it all.

Perhaps an example: CNN putting up a still graphic before commercial breaks saying "CNN remembers the crew of the space shuttle Columbia" Wow! How very good of them to remember. Especially since the incident happened less than 24 hours earlier. But true to media form, they'll be forgotten as soon as the next big thing comes along. Give them a week, max.

Timmy, who seems to relish these opportunities to be a "great American" went for the gusto and hit all the right notes. Originally, the show had scheduled Tom "Bugged Out" DeLay (R-Orkin) and Gov. Howard Dean (D-Dark Horse) for this morning's shindig. Gotta love that kind of contrast. But we wuz robbed when Tim got excited at the prospect of having an all-maudlin, all-somber, super-nationalistic, hero-manufacturing chest-thumping, All-American self-love fest and rustled up a new slate of guests that he could use to "honor" the lost crewmen and women.

Maybe it's the fact that we, as reflected by the media, seem to have this raving need for denial. We can't handle failure, and rush to not only gloss it over, but to magically turn it into some sort of triumphal celebration of American "heroism" and courage.

Maybe I'm delusional, but it appeared to me that something went very wrong and we lost a perhaps billion dollar space shuttle and seven extremely talented lives. Yet it's bad form to ask why these astronauts are instant heroes.

Yes, they were extremely dedicated, and had spent the majority of their lives training their minds and bodies for this task. They knew the risk. They could die in the attempt. Yet they accepted that risk in order to go on probably the best adventure still available to mankind. To go into space.

For this they should be respected. For this they deserve our gratitude and admiration. But it's the hype that galls. All our "heroes" seem to be of the accidental type.

People go to work in Manhattan and D.C. one day, as 90% of the people on earth do every day, get killed in a senseless way, and are instant "heroes." People who are trained, equipped, and paid to rescue people try to rescue people and are killed in the attempt. They are instant "super-heroes". Survivors respond to people in need by selflessly donating time, money and energy to support rescue workers, those cleaning up the wreckage, those harmed by the attack, and the families of victims. This is normal and expected behavior from normal, feeling people. Yet this is considered truly remarkable and somehow uniquely American.

Astronauts are trained, millions spent on their training and the technology to send them into space to primarily do research for defense and industry. They perish in a ball of fire through no fault of their own in the course of doing what they wanted to do, and what they've trained for years to do and what millions of dollars have been spent in preparing them to do. They are instant "heroes".

A CIA guy is in Afghanistan in the middle of a bunch of captured Taliban trying to get info out of them by any means necessary. Things go out of control and he's killed. He's an instant "hero."

A group of luckless soldiers go down in a helicopter and are killed simply going from point A to point B in a non-combat situation. Instant "heroes."

We're supposed to feel inspired by this.

Somehow, I don't.

It's fake, and it's a blatant attempt to manipulate us into an emotional response of nationalistic pride. Pride over a horrible failure? What am I missing?

But, just to pick one of many instances, we don't have blanket, weepy, poetic coverage complete with stirring background music of guys that risk their lives on the job every day, say, driving semis anywhere and everywhere in any kind of weather and who lose their lives in a senseless traffic accident. Yet they were doing the same thing the astronauts were doing: going to work doing what they'd chosen to do and had been trained and paid to do. (Except there aren't many parents out there admonishing their kids to do well in school so that someday, they might become a truck driver.)

Maybe the difference is that in the trucker's case, we don't have shocking footage that the media can run every few minutes on dozens of channels for about 48 hours straight. Or perhaps that working class heroes get killed and die so often that it's not "news". But the fact is, it's simply not as good a propaganda tool, so it's not even noticed.

I don't know. It just seems wrong, the trait of throwing up whoever they can for hero of the moment, and usually after they're senselessly killed. To me it seems like those admirable people who have just tragically lost their lives are being shamelessly used, and used, and used beyond excess, for one purpose, and one purpose only: a quest for viewers and ratings by manufacturing a "national moment".

Within an hour, jackal reporters are banging on the door and invading the property and privacy of the poor family members of those who have lost their lives only moments before. Rather than being able to absorb and cope with this massive blow, they have to deal with these ghouls trampling their flowers and jamming microphones in their faces to ask them "What were you feelings when you heard the news that your son/daughter had just been incinerated?" It's unconscionable, yet routine.

Then they dig and pester and research until they can uncover every private aspect of the victim's family's lives and plaster their pictures on TV and broadcast their personal details for the world. And all without a thought as to getting their permission. And this is simply to try to magnify the soap-opera aspect of it and grasp for some human face that people can focus their sympathy on. They have my sympathy all right, but almost as much for what they have to endure from the heartless, selfish media as for their tragic loss.

Even the families are being called heroes and gushed over. But to their credit the families I've seen have all been calm and reasonable. These, after all, are the people responsible for bearing and raising these exceptionally bright and ambitious astronauts. They knew full well the dangers involved, and are rational people. I'm sure they're grieving, but they are not wallowing in it like the media seems to demand of the rest of us.

They rush to get the entire life stories of all the victims, so we can really sink our teeth into some good grief (They were married! All but one had children!!) and prove what very caring people we are by expressing genuine grief over people we don't know from Adam and would never have given a damn about if the mission had been routine. (Quick, name one astronaut on any of the recent shuttle missions.)

To hear the rampant glorification going on, complete with string music in the background, you'd think these people were the ONLY astronauts that ever existed (except of course, the Challenger victims.)

Something is disturbing about that. And most disturbing was the posturing, insincere, would-be Emperor Chimp going on TV and using his new and disturbing act (first used in the SOTU speech) of coming off like some eerily blissed-out religious cult leader, while shamelessly using these deaths for his own glorification. (Though we can all count ourselves blessed that he didn't try to link this to Saddam Hussein --- yet. Though I'm sure that there were many blood-lusting advisors encouraging him to do so.)

One of the first things we noticed in all this is the quick emergence of the media story line. One thing they all grabbed onto like Bob Novak on a tax giveaway was the NASA "family". That rang their bells, and it was endlessly used every time NASA and it's workers were referred to. Considering that NASA probably employs tens of thousands of people, that's one damn big family. Watch how often that tag line is used.

I guess if you had to pick heroes, the shuttle crew are appropriate to look up to. I guess that's what it's about. Trying to instruct us moronic dopes out here of what basic human traits we're supposed to admire and strive for. Kind of sad they think we need to have our noses rubbed in what should be patently obvious. And that's one thing you can count on from the media in these cases: endless repetition of the mind-bogglingly obvious. Let's see how Tim and guests do.

Another crass aspect of these tragedies are the media scouring the terrain for some "experts" to comment. Some of them, if not most, eagerly put themselves out for this purpose. I don't know if it's for monetary gain or simply to get their mug on TV. But it's seedy and many have no business being on TV. You could get more informed and logical commentary from the guy on the bar stool next to you than from some of these "experts."

Today, Tim had gotten John Glenn, a genuine space hero that put himself forward as an astronaut when they truly were in the guinea pig stage of space exploration. His history proves his commitment to the space program. He is serious about it, and so doesn't contribute to the meaningless hype and maudlin grief. He knows that the risk of death goes with the territory. It's a mission, you go out to do your mission, and if some don't come back, farewell to good people, but there are many more who are alive and just as devoted to the mission as those that are lost. The astronauts are only a part of the mission. The mission goes on.

They also scrapped up another congressperson/former astronaut, Bill Nelson (D-FL), as well as ubiquitous NASA administrator, Sean O'Keefe, the aging Buzz Aldrin, and Rick Hauck, the commander of the first shuttle flight after the Challenger disaster.

Tim led off with the veteran space reporter Jay Barbree, who was a breath of fresh air in that he stuck to the science and facts and refused to indulge in the insane desire to rush to some sort of judgment. Tim practically demanded to know what happened, as if that's even a remotely responsible thing to expect at this point.

Tim took his first step into idiocy by intoning that some had said there may have been a problem with the "left wing area" of the shuttle, as he solemnly produced and held up a little model of the space shuttle and pointed out the left wing for the benefit of us morons.

Hey, that was really helpful, Tim. That must be why you're on the top of the heap. I would have been completely baffled without a visual aid to help me understand what you meant by "the left wing". Left? Huh? Wing? What's that? Actually, I'm surprised to hear Tim say anything about a left wing without implying something negative.

Then followed another brilliant TV moment that really enlightened us all. He cut to a remote of Dan Archer. Who's he you ask? Why, he's a camera man for KCEN in Waco, TX. Tim even said so. But in case us idiots didn't get it, they had him standing in front of the station cradling a huge TV camera in his arms, with the huge letters KCEN visible on the building over his shoulder. Great TV!

Why was Dan on national TV? Well Dan had actually been out to film the flyover and got footage of it. What made it different from all the other footage? Absolutely nothing, except perhaps the fact that Dan worked for NBC. Actually, they showed this blockbuster footage, and it looked like a bright point followed by a condensation trail. No disintegration, no nothing. It was less dramatic than the home movie footage we've all seen. But a big national attaboy for Dan!!

Now on to a rarity --- an actual person that knows what he's talking about, namely, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe. Of course, his job is to go on and field agonizingly STUPID questions from Tim and the rest of his cohorts over and over and over again. They can't pay him enough, in my opinion.

There's a basic truth about this story at this point. There is NOTHING to report other than what we all know already. Something went wrong, debris fell over a huge range, the crew is dead.

Yet the media INSISTS on dragging on people to go through the complete charade of trying to find out more answers or information. It just ain't gonna happen, and they know this. So why waste all our time?

So Tim proceeded to hold up his trusty model and ask a truly absurd question. Tim had heard that a chunk of foam had broken off on liftoff and struck a wing, could this be what caused the accident? (As if there was any other answer than "possibly.")

[A brief aside: at least Tim wasn't as stupid and uninformed as George Stephanopoulos on "This Greek", who in asking his question about this issue, said that this foam had "knocked off" some of the protective tiles from the shuttle. The woman guest didn't point out his gaffe directly, but answered that this was fairly routine that foam came off, and that there's no telling what the consequences would be as it would depend on what damage was done, and IF a tile had come off at all, as there was no way of telling if any had. As I've noticed so many times, these guys on these shows have a script, and they don't even LISTEN to the answers their guests provide. Incredibly, in Georgie's follow up question to this answer, he AGAIN referred to the tiles having been knocked off by the foam debris at launch as if it were an accepted fact. Unfortunately, the guest missed yet another opportunity to put George straight.]

And then Tim, as if to outdo his first piece of drivel, then wondered why there wasn't some way for the crew to go outside the shuttle and look the wing over and check for damage.

Look, I suppose Tim might be asking these stupid questions because that's what he thinks many morons are wondering. This is no doubt true. But really! The crew is just going to just step outside for a while to look over the underside of the wings? And just what are they supposed to do if they found damage? Decide not to come home? Maybe try another way to get back to earth than through the atmosphere? Maybe some place where there's not much air? Fix it with a bunch of duct tape? What?

Then to my amazement, Tim actually ASKED THAT QUESTION! He actually asked that, if they had found damage, could they have somehow taken a different route back to earth! "--- maybe docked at the space station, or taken an extra orbit?" Yes, ladies and gentleman, he actually asked that.

That's an interesting concept. If you take an extra orbit, that it somehow alters the heat and dynamics of tearing through the atmosphere at about mach 20. Maybe Timmy knows some new rule of physics that he's not letting the rest of the universe in on. I'm just surprised he didn't ask why they didn't just hang some laundry out the windows like parachutes to slow them down. Sheesh!

Then Russert attempted to gin up some drama by asking how the astronauts currently on board the space station will get back. As has been reported endlessly, the crew has enough supplies to last through March, and they can return on a Russian Soyuz craft if need be. Guess Tim hadn't heard.

Even after this patient man explained things to Tim, Russert still tried to get him to say that they wouldn't send up another shuttle. You could tell Tim had a chubby for a stranded astronaut story. Showing amazing restraint, O'Keefe explained to Tim that, as always, if there's any question about safety, the missions will be put on hold, as is the case here. But they expect to return the astronauts to earth one way or another, and it's not of any great concern.

The stupidity didn't let up. Tim then said, an "astrologist" (that's right) in California had said he saw something "peeling away" from the craft as it passed overhead.

As if he thinks this is some key piece of evidence, Tim then asked O'Keefe if anyone had spoken to this guy, and if not, will someone soon? One guy in California sees something that would only fit the scenario and Tim starts asking like there's a cover-up in progress. This is the crap he gets paid millions for. To manufacture drama when there is NONE present.

What do you think the answer would be? Yep, you're correct! O'Keefe said that all evidence is being examined, that there are several teams out looking into every sighting and collecting every piece of evidence they can, that they're leaving nothing to chance and nothing unexamined. What did Tim expect? That Keefe would say, "Well, we have a couple guys from maintenance out there looking into all this."?

Tim wondered if the shuttle was too old and if budget constraints played a role in this. I found this ironic since the politicians that Tim is so enamored of are the very ones that would gleefully slash even more off the NASA budget. (unless of course the politician had some rich donor in their district that was making millions from it.)

Then another simpleton question: Will this mean that NASA will only do unmanned missions from now on? "Yes Tim. This scared us so much we're planning on training donkeys or possibly ferrets as mission specialists in the future."

Then yet another oh-so-important question that all the world wants to know, Where will all the debris that is found be brought to? Boy! Thank goodness Tim asked this, now I can sleep tonight. A grateful nation thanks you Timbo.

As if Russert was worried that the tragedy level was not sufficient, they opened the second segment with a clip of the Challenger exploding. This was to set up Tim's first tough question, which he put to Rick Hauck, the commander of the first shuttle flight after the Challenger. Tim did his trademark deal where he tilts his head and leans low and close over the table and asked him, "How scared were you?"

"Well Tim, to be honest, I filled my suit so full it was half way up the visor. They had to bury it after the mission." I mean, where does Tim come up with these gems?

But it got more embarrassing soon after when Russert dramatically asked Hauck, "If something catastrophic went wrong, you would ----?" The guy looked baffled by such a weird question, and after a short silence, replied, "Go fetal ---- close your eyes."

Tim broke the uncomfortable pause by saying meaningfully, "There's nothing else to do." Hauck said that in most circumstances like that, there's not a lot to be done. DUH!

Russert asked Hauck what had caused the accident. "Tim, it was a loose screw in the 4th bulkhead, about three quarters of the way up the starboard wall." I guess Tim was hoping for something like that.

But the guy rationally said that he didn't know, but based on indications, he thought that it would lead down the path of investigating the heat shields, though he noted that they couldn't let themselves be mislead into not investigating all possibilities, and was sure they'd have many crews investigation all aspects of the flight.

Then Russert went into his favorite role; Father Tim. He lowered his voice dramatically as he introduced Bill Nelson and told us that Nelson had flown in the very same shuttle that had gone down yesterday (CHILLS!!!! DRAMA!!!!)

"Tell us, Senator Nelson, about going up into space, the liftoff, the reentry, and then, yesterday, when you saw the very spacecraft you'd gone up in, exploding."

In a rather bizarre reply, Nelson, who is rather bizarre in that he seems to be a self-parody of a politician, said correctly that the missions must go on, that the risk is known and accepted by all. But then, recounted what it was like to be miles above the earth and the lights and glowing around the craft as he re-entered the atmosphere.

Tim didn't follow up and went straight to Buzz Aldrin. Tim brought up the nauseating story of how years ago, prior to the first moon landing, Frank Borman, the former astronaut who was in charge of the program, had called Richard Nixon to request that he have his then speechwriter, the odious Bill Saffire, write a speech in case something went wrong and Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin were stranded on the moon.

Incredibly, though not surprisingly for such a duplicitous and truly reprehensible snake as Saffire, he'd written a speech that said, "These men have now CHOSEN a fate, as heroes, to remain on the moon because of their pioneer spirit." Have you ever read such a horrible lie? But it's no surprise coming from the loathsome Saffire.

Old Buzz said that he and Armstrong enjoyed being on the moon, but he doesn't think they would have chosen to stay there! No Shit! Haha!

Then Tim asked Senator Nelson to explain his statement that budget cuts for NASA were endangering safety. Nelson said he agreed, but hastened to add that he didn't think these cuts had anything to do with yesterday's incident.

Out of the entire hour, there was at least one useful bit of information given by Tim. This came in the course of his asking if we can afford to spend more money on the space program. He reported that the cost of the Columbia was 1.7 BILLION bucks. ( That would pay for quite a few check-ups for those without health insurance.)

I'm sure that conceptually, the shallow dunce in the White House has no problem with spreading that much money around Texas, but I'm sure he would have rather it be distributed in a more controlled manner to those who least needed it.

I guess if one had to pick heroes, the shuttle crew are appropriate to look up to. I guess that's what it's about. Trying to instruct us moronic dopes out here of what basic human traits we're supposed to admire and strive for. Kind of sad they think we need to have our noses rubbed in what should be patently obvious. But if there's one thing you can count on from the media in these cases, it's the endless repetition of the mind-bogglingly obvious.

As I noted above, in all the wallowing in this, and all the massive effort to make it a personal story, the loss to the nation in terms of tax dollars is barely touched upon. That's 1.7 billion dollars floating down out of the sky folks. And by the time they recover it all, it will probably fit in a couple Hefty bags.

Then Nelson and Aldrin opined about why we need to further the space program, speaking of national dreams and aspirations, and with Aldrin raising the prospect of the Chinese eclipsing the US by in space.

Then Father Tim took us to the metaphysical level by asking the guests whether they believed there were other intelligent life in the universe.

Aldrin answered a resounding yes, but upon skeptical looks from Russert, added that he thought we were the superior beings. Nelson, to his credit, also said that he had no doubt there was other life out there, since the universe is so incomprehensibly vast. Nelson asked, "Who are we to limit this creation that is infinite?" and expressed support for us going to Mars. He said that he believed what we learn from space exploration can help us be better stewards of the earth.

For all our sakes, and those of our descendants, I hope he's right.

Hauck gave an answer that seemed to suggest that HE should have been another politician/astronaut. Listen to this: "I'm sure that somewhere, at sometime, whether at this present time, or in the future, or in the past, that there is, or was, or will be, some life, somewhere beyond." Wow, that's some sentence! And he gave himself an out from being attacked by religious freaks that lose it at the suggestion that there's any other life in the universe, no matter how vast it is. He can just say, "Well, right now, we're probably the only ones."

Then Tim asked a truly weird question. He asked the guests if they were confident that "NASA will examine every shred of evidence" and that "there will not be, in any way, shape, or form, any type or attempt at a cover-up."

What's up with Tim? Does he suspect foul play? Why is he so skeptical that this won't all be investigated and the cause revealed? I find it more than a bit odd, primarily because there have been so MANY far more suspicious events where such skepticism could have, and SHOULD have been fully and exhaustively looked into. The fact that he trots out his journalistic skepticism for such an undeserving matter is beyond galling.

But now, with an organization that has absolutely nothing to gain by any cover-up, and absolutely MUST find out what went wrong and why to ensure it's very survival, Tim is as suspicious as can be, before 24 hours have passed! Do us a favor Russert, try being this skeptical where it's needed. Start asking questions of this unelected administration and try being a true patriot and civic-minded member of the press, rather than simply working hard to create that illusion.

The segment ended with the panel expressing the same views that I did above, that there is really no call to grieve to excess the lives of these crew members.

To wrap up the segment, Russert couldn't resist dipping into the cheap emotion bucket and came up with asking Hauck "What would you say to the 12 children of these astronauts who have lost their lives about what their Mom or Dad tried to achieve?" (I'm so sick of these cheap-ass questions.)

But Hauck echoed my views, saying, "Well, I think for all the family, the people that were so close to them, they have to realize that they died doing what they wanted to do. And I think all of those that died would say, don't abandon the cause. Don't let our death be in vain. Don't grieve for us, grieve for each other, but not for us."

Nelson strongly agreed and noted that the cause was bigger than any individual.

Senator Glenn appeared, after the break and as usual, gave a cogent and rational case for the value of the space program and why we need to continue it.

First Tim prodded him to tell an exciting tale from his Mercury flight where he re-entered with a parachute pack attached to the heat shield that wasn't supposed to be there.

Then more clips of Glenn's flight at age 77 in the shuttle.

Glenn then said it was encouraging that most conversations around the accident have been mindful that we're not just up in space to "joy-ride around", citing many of the experiments and science performed in space that will benefit those on earth.

He continued with an interesting discussion of scientific efforts and goals of the program, and recalled the spirit that led us into space, likening it to the spirit of Lewis & Clark and other explorers.

Tim was basically leading a retrospective of the space program at this point. Russert asked if the president should set a goal of reaching Mars. Glenn prudently said we should take things step by step and continue as we have. He hammered on American leadership in space.

Though now 81, Glenn instantly said he'd be more than willing to go up in the next shuttle mission. "I think others should be given the opportunity to go, but if NASA said that they wanted to investigate something using my body, I'd be down there tomorrow."

Gotta like an attitude like that from someone who's in their 80's.

Then Tim closed the show with the only thing the TV media seem to know how to do, the wallow and cheesy memorial segment. He showed each victim's picture one at a time, then Reagan's face appeared, causing a momentary acid reflux, as he recited a line from someone else's poem that someone ELSE had dug up for him to read after the Challenger disaster.

As wrong as it is, people seem intent on making it appear that it was Reagan's words when he spoke of "breaking the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God." But hey, without mythmaking, Madison Avenue marketing techniques, and advanced propaganda efforts, no one would even SPEAK to most Republican presidents, much less vote for them.

-- Dash Riprock

Tim Russert, unsurprisingly, was the most disgusting of the Sunday loudmouths this morning, especially during his interview with NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe. The crude and unusually inarticulate talking head actually used O'Keefe's appearance as an excuse for publicizing NASA's telephone number for people to call should they find some "debris":

Any witnesses who have information, pictures or video, call NASA, 281.483.3388. 281.483.3388. All the debris that is gathered up -- and we understand there are now some body parts and remains and even a helmet of an astronaut! Where will they be brought to?

That last aside was beyond uncalled for. It was disgusting. It was morbid and atrocious exploitation at the expense of the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, children, nieces, nephews and lifelong friends of Columbia's brave crew.

Russert should be terminated immediately for this latest lack of compassion, and for a decade of similar conduct -- misleading and lying to viewers, hurting and lynching progressives, liberals and Democrats, and, of course, the ceaseless destruction of Meet the Press -- conduct that taints the legacy of the wonderful and professional journalists who have occupied his seat in the past.

-- Jeff Koopersmith

JJ Balzer is a former television news producer. He lives in New York City.

Jeff Koopersmith is a renegade lobbyist, political consultant, and the author of the forthcoming Big Lies. He lives in Washington, DC and New York City.