"There are very few outstanding vocal performances, other than Robert Cray and Bob Marley."

Wow! Spoken like a true neophyte! And that quote followed a listing that included Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding as singers who don't hold up to repeated listenings! I don't think even Bob Marley thought his voice was great (let alone one of the greatest). And citing "Robert Cray" as one of pop or rock music’s greatest singers speaks for itself.

The only reason I wanted to post here, aside from being repulsed by the ever-narcissistic self-persecution that afflicts so many Jazz aficionados (“If only people knew what I knew!”), Jazz has at least always been seen as a classical form of music in Europe and Asia. Just because America holds its importance down is no reason to equate that with international or historic indifference. Most of the world isn’t as blind as America is when it comes to it’s art and music. But at least Jazz is CONSIDERED a widely under-appreciated form of music in this country. The body of great and influential music that was created by Gospel artists in the 20th Century doesn’t even rate an ASTERISK in most “serious” studies of music! The other-worldly artistic excellence of artists such as Claude Jeter & the Swan Silvertones, Julius Cheeks & the Sensational Nightingales, R.H. Harris & the Soul Stirrers, Dorothy Love Coates & the Gospel Harmonettes, etc., gets such a short shrift that when it’s mentioned at all it is usually disparaged as “religious music”. Which is akin to saying,”Billie Holiday was great … but it was secular music”.

Until Gospel music begins to get recognized as the incalculably important art form, that revolutionized singing, that it was, Jazz fans should be happy their music is at least ACCEPTED as a maligned form of music. Gospel doesn’t even rate being under-appreciated – among most “scholars”. It’s achievement as an art form doesn’t even exist in most books!

"Not every journalist can be an expert in every topic. Some are going to be really good at standing in front of election maps and drawing different color lines with their fingers. Others are going to have more substantive skills." - Glenn Greenwald

Can you cite the "others" with the "more substantive skills"? I have satellite TV, so I only get about 550 stations. Where are the educated, substantive news anchors? Aside from Amy Goodman on LINK TV, I can't think of anyone that seems to have a strong knowledge of anything beyond hair gel, GQ clothing, and Hollywood gossip.

About 10 years ago, the comedian Chris Rock made the observation that many people today wear their stupidity like a badge of honor. He said that when you ask the average person about ANYTHING other than themselves, they'll say, "Shit, I don't know about that!”. As if knowing about "things" was something for only the most erudite and scholarly people.

When I see news anchors like John King (despite his "20 plus years" experience!), and MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, etc., it seems their job is to be the voice for the morons in the audience... As Bill Maher has said, the evening news USED to be geared towards smart people. Today it's aimed at the lowest common denominator, despite the fact that people who are uninterested in the news are most likely not watching it!

Tim Russert also asked Barack Obama in 2006 what he thought of Harry Belafonte calling George W Bush a terrorist. The question came from out of nowhere, was completely ridiculous, and was posed to Obama seemingly because both he and Belafonte are black. There was no other reason I can think of for bringing it up.

There's no denying the media gives a free pass to Christian extremists, regardless of how bigoted and hateful their speech is, but I believe Russert's issues have a lot to do with his seeing blacks as a monolithic group who are ALWAYS answerable for each others behavior. But, of course, I'm "playing the race card" to even think Russert sees Barack Obama solely as a "black candidate".