Anyone else upset by the D-Day coverage cut into by Reagan coverage?

[liberalhistorian]

This was one of the most moving, eloquent, well-staged D-Day commemoration ceremonies I've ever seen, especially seeing all of the old veterans, the men who endured the unimaginable hell of that day and who saw thousands of fellow soldiers cut down right in front of them while attempting the seemingly impossible, all to free us from the Nazis, grouped together and parading together.

But, damnit, too many of the networks covering it cut right into it for more Raygun bullshit. One even cut into the tribute to the vets and the part of the program showing film of the major WWII events prior to D-Day then the actual films of the invasion itself for nothing more than a continuation of the piling on of more saintly adoration bullshit for him. There wasn't even any real news, it was just more saintly worship.I was so frustrated, and I couldn't believe it.

Goddamn, they'd already saturated the airwaves for the past 24 hours with this Reagan stuff; couldn't they have at least waited a few lousy hours to start in on it again and left the D-Day coverage the hell alone? Didn't the vets and those who endured the hell of that day, the families of those who died, and those who wanted to pay tribute deserve better than that? Reagan never spent one fucking day in uniform, was just another chickenhawk armchair warrior warmongering war romanticizer who spent WWII making training films in Hollywood; he had no fucking clue at all what those men went through, especially since he was safe and sound in la-la land, and it's not as if the orgy grief fest couldn't continue AFTER the D-Day ceremonies. For Christ's sake, we've got at least another week of this shit.

The vets and the families, and those of us who wanted to watch the coverage and pay our own tribute deserved a helluva lot better.

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

1. I posted my feelings about this in a previous thread. Yes, I think

they did a disservice to the WW II vets. This is their day...60 years after D-Day. We'll have six days of Reagan coverage...and they couldn't give the vets their day? To me, it was a slap in the face to those who served. I think CNN was the worst.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

2. No Faux is still the worse.

It's 24/7 Bush = Reagan.

:argh:

[SCRUBDASHRUB]

4. I refuse to give Faux any coverage in my home.

[liberalhistorian]

6. Exactly!

For most of the vets, this will be their last major D-Day commemoration, the majority won't be alive at the 65th and 70th commemorations. They DESERVE this, this should have been THEIR day. This is probably the last major time world attention will be focused on them and their sacrifices, and it infuriates me that they were insulted in such a manner.

I don't even think Reagan himself would have approved. Of course, I don't think he would have approved of a federal building and an airport being named after him, either, but that's neither here nor there right now.

[gulliver]

3. It was merciful, IMO.

Bush wasn't able to capitalize on D-Day nearly as much as his undeserving ass would have liked.

[It was not a pretzel]

15. I can't believe I'm saying this

but Bush was fine yesterday and didn't exploit D-Day to tout his invasion of Iraq and I actually found his speach very moving. Luckily Sky News covered to whole of the D-Day rememberence without interruption. I didn't check Fox and CNN but it was RR all the time, hardly a mention of D-Day....support the troops and respect the vets my arse.

[BlackVelvetElvis]

5. I watched most of it on MSNBC

I thought about the vets and their families who weren't able to attend the ceremony and only got to watch. They deserved to see this. I wonder how the coverage was in Canada or in Europe? I'm sure it must of been better than what the US offered.

[Supormom]

7. There will be nonstop "news" until Friday

regarding the Reagan memorial. They could have at least given the veterans their day.

[Neecy]

8. absolutely

I was enjoying the coverage on MSNBC yesterday, and as soon as the Reagan love-fest came on I switched it off (don't any of these people REMEMBER the Reagan years? I sure as hell do!).

Anyway, I was initially glad that MSNBC picked up the D-Day coverage again this morning, but even so it was terrible. They'd give us a fleeting glimpse of what was happening at the various ceremonies, then cut to their anchors who'd blab to each other on camera. The only full coverage was of Lil' Jackass and his speech, which I gladly could have missed.

I wonder why C-SPAN didn't cover any of this?

[VolcanoJen]

9. Very, very much so.

These ceremonies represented the last time, likely, that D-Day Veterans will gather in Normandy. It was important, moving, historic, and I wanted to watch every last minute. It simply will not occur again, and here in America, most of us missed it.

The death of Reagan was big news, but I feel strongly that the coverage given to the story was ridiculously disproportionate compared to the Normandy ceremonies, especially considering that this is going to continue for a solid week.

I'm disappointed. :-( I had the pleasure of visiting the D-Day sites in Normandy in the spring of 2000, and I just really wanted to share in the ceremonies today.

[GoldenOldie]

10. How very Sad

I to was impressed that this 60-year memorialization has been the best ever. I being a senior now and having lost someone that I loved as a child, this 60-year memorialization and the WWII Memorial dedication in DC meant a great deal to me and my family. I was truly impressed by the coverage by the media of the survivors of WWII and especially D-Day.....until.....the death of Reagan. Now the reporting was a hapenstance bit done by the media while all focus was shown to Ronald Reagan, a 93-year old man, who had been President and had played a minor role during WWII by doing films for the war effort. All media extold the virtues of Reagan while at the same time ignoring those elderly veterans and their families who may not survive for the next years memorialization.....those same veterans who gave so much of themselves so that a Ronald Reagan could become President of the United States. How very sad we have become.

[DrWeird]

11. Actually, I think they're both over covered.

While I recognize the tactical significance and visual impact of the Allies landing at Normandy, I don't see why, compared to all the other significant battles in US history, this one, where there was some 8,000 allied casualities deserves two weeks of coverage, including the lion's share of Memorial Day, and getting labeled "the greatest tragedy in human history" on the History channel.

[liberalhistorian]

12. It wasn't "just another battle."

It was the turning point of WWII, without which we and the rest of the world might very well be in control of the Nazis right now. It was one of the most daring military operations ever; while horrible, they had to do it. Its historical significance can never be minimized. Those who participated, those who lost their lives, their families, and those who wanted to pay deserved tribute deserved so much better than this.

[DrWeird]

13. Was it the turning point?

What about the Battle of Stalingrad? Or Iwo Jima? Or Midway?

[ArkDem]

14. The Russians would have put an end to Hitler even if D-day had failed.

It just brought about a quicker end to the war.