When some celebrities die I don't feel anything one way or another. Vonnegut was such a backdrop of modern science fiction that I can't miss him. He poured enough of himself into our culture that it still feels like he's with us.

There was something comforting about knowing that he existed. That comfort is gone now.

Don't worry. Dean Koontz still lives.

But seriously, I'm sad to have been beaten to the punch. I wanted to post this celebrity death and try to work in a Slaghterhouse Five reference, but didn't have the time this morning.

"Don't worry. Dean Koontz still lives."

Oh god, now the universe is out of balance. Must kill Dean Koontz...

What gets me is that the news this morning (what I say of it), had about a ten second blurb about Kurt Vonnegut, and a good ten minutes (just while I was sitting there having breakfast, and that's a low estimate) about Don Imus. Apparently, moderately offensive comments bother us more than death.

Someone's death isn't really a developing story (unless there is inherited fortune and disputed paternety).

Vonnegut's death is culturally much more significant than the Imus gaffe.

"Vonnegut's death is culturally much more significant than the Imus gaffe."

Really? I think his life is culturally significant. His death? Not so much. Even if it is "culturally significant", it's still not a developing story. Once you say, "Kurt Vonnegut is dead." what else have you got to say that we don't already know? Do you want a retrospective? That's not news. That's an encylopedia.

sure. But that doesn't change the fact that it is of greater import, and deserving of greater coverage. Our News industry has been so watered down and tabloidified so as to no longer resemble real news. We get in depth coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's offspring and Brintney Spears vagina, but very little about the death of a literary icon. Sad. That's all

"it is of greater import, and deserving of greater coverage."

What do you want to know about his death that hasn't been covered? Or is it just that the same amount of time wasn't alotted to Vonegut's death? Again, I ask, once you say "Kurt Vonnegut is dead", what's left to say? Do you want to parade his dead corpse around?

The news stories that get the most attention are ones that are developing, and ones that are emotionally interesting. Why? Because that's what people want. News organizations aren't altruistic organizations. They're businesses.

"Again, I ask, once you say "Kurt Vonnegut is dead", what's left to say? "

The cause of death, perhaps? I didn't learn that until last night. Turned out to be a head injury. And yes, a retrospective of his life, his accomplishments. When Anna Nicole died, I was bombarded with a run down of her "accomplishments", isn't Vonnegut deserving of at least the same?

"News organizations aren't altruistic organizations. They're businesses."

That's the sort of thinking that has ruined network news. Traditionally, the news departments of the major networks were run as a public service. In fact, there are federally mandated rules that they be run as a public service. News did not answer to corporate. News was not expected to make money. News existed to inform. Just as networks were required to produce a certain amount of educational programing, they were required to provide a news service.

This started to change in the 80s. It's about time it changed back.

"That's the sort of thinking that has ruined network news."

It's not my thinking, it's just a fact. As long as advertising is sold during the news, it will be business. If the news was run as an advertising free half-hour, you'd get cold facts and not sensationalism (ie "Kurt Vonnegut is dead."). On the flip side, however, there would be no need to "get the scoop" on the next hot story. There'd be no reason for a news organization to distinguish itself above others because they'd all be reporting the same on the surface news. With no corporate profits, news would have to be funded solely by government, which leads into your comment...

"In fact, there are federally mandated rules that they be run as a public service."

True, if you're a free and over the air broadcast station, you must provide news and weather alerts. However, due to the advertising model, the government doesn't dictate the news.

Sponsors do.

"This started to change in the 80s."

No, sir. News has been this way since the beginning. The 80s are just when you started paying attention.

On to the other topic at hand...

"The cause of death, perhaps? I didn't learn that until last night."

I guess we watch/read different news sources. Each time I came accross Vonnegut's death in the news yesterday I was informed that it was due to complications following a recent head injury. In most cases I learned that injury was caused by a fall. I do not know if he slipped on a banana peel or tripped.

"And yes, a retrospective of his life, his accomplishments. When Anna Nicole died, I was bombarded with a run down of her "accomplishments", isn't Vonnegut deserving of at least the same?"

This calls back to the "developing news" I mentioned earlier. However, your argument presents another interesting point. Should news organizations judge who's popular/"culturally significant" enough to merit retrospectives? What if, in 25 seperate incidents, 25 celebrities of arguable "cultural significance" met their demise. Should we:

A) Spend the entire day covering celebrity deaths, alotting equal time to each.

B) Rank them on "cultural significance" and give those atop the board the most time.

With advertising free news, the target audience doesn't help decide this cultural significance, the government paid employee does.