In a way you’re illustrating the problem here. You’re talking about “excitement” and being a “junkie getting a fix” – I assume you mean you get a rush from this stuff or have an emotional craving for it.

But that’s precisely what’s wrong with US journalism and politics! Look at TV news – it’s now routinely recognized as “infotainment” – “If it bleeds it leads” – it’s filled with dramatic music, melodramatic stories, and anything that’s dry, detailed or boring is excised.

And the same with politics – it should be about choosing wise and knowledgable leaders and selecting policies that address important issues – our security, our liberty, our economic prosperity, our health and education – all sober topics which should receive sober consideration. Instead it’s a sort of corporate-political rave where everyone parties big time, high on confetti, slogans, and campaign contributions. And what would a spectacle be without spectators? So people like you get to sit in the electronic Coliseum and get your vicarious thrills.

Then there is the little fact that one of the two major parties is nominating a black man for the presidency for the first time, ever.

But why do ANY of these things need WBUR to send Bob Oakes, Tom Ashbrook, Robin Young, et al, physically to Denver to report on? Every one of the things you mentioned could be dispatched to us via a single NPR reporter. The analysis – its meaning, significance, import, etc, can all be done from the studio in Boston, at much lower cost to the contributors, far fewer greenhouse emissions AND without contributing to the sense of politics-as-spectacle that is ruining our political culture. Please listen to last week’s OTM interview on this topic.

Keep in mind that WBUR “can” only do this through the generosity of listeners like me. Which means they need to make the case why they could not have covered the topics OP is discussing this week without physically going to Denver.

I think that the coverage has been great so far and is taking in many points of view. I thought the “Blue Dog vs. Progressive” battle on today’s show was excellent and gave me a new understanding of the internal fights within the Democratic Party (there are these internal fights in the GOP also).

But you can “listen to what is said” without sending a whole crew out there.

Furthermore, On Point routinely does shows where the guests are connected remotely, e.g., by telephone or in a local affiliate’s studio. So they could do the same shows they’re doing this week without having to send a whole crew of people out there.

Then there is the alleged conspiracy to make an attempt on Sen. Obama’s life on Thursday that was broken up yesterday, or the campaign’s attempt to get the recent Ayer’s Ad declared illegal and Obama’s call for a boycott against any networks that air the ad as news. Perhaps Ted Kennedy’s appearance was part political theatre, but perhaps the Lion of the Senate’s second public appearance since being diagnosed with a brain tumor is actually news.

Then there is the little fact that one of the two major parties is nominating a black man for the presidency for the first time, ever.

There is a lot of news around this campaign, Denver is where the campaign is, it makes sense to be there.

Besides, On Point and Here and Now are nationally syndicated, and as long as the Republican convention gets as much attention I really don’t see an issue. This is an election year after all.

I’m a member, just like I’m a taxpayer, and some things you support funding for and others you don’t, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop giving or listening.

And, I’m very excited On Point is two different shows each day, there’s just that much content and political junkies like me need that fix

Yes, Peter, the conventions are more theater than news, but it is still a critical news event especially for us political junkies out there.

NPR/PBS listeners have always been prove to know more than viewers of CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS because we listen for what is being said and not said and not watch the theater. So, Peter, cut some of us some slack.

I think that the coverage has been great so far and is taking in many points of view. I thought the “Blue Dog vs. Progressive” battle on today’s show was excellent and gave me a new understanding of the internal fights within the Democratic Party (there are these internal fights in the GOP also).

Keep up the good work, NPR & WBUR, I think this is a great investment for your listeners.

Sending your anchor to a news story is entirely about spectacle: TV news does it to provide the proper backdrop to the story. It’s show biz.

Why should WBUR spend thousands of dollars in listener contributions sending Mr. Ashbrook on this trip? We won’t see him in the skybox. He will not be contributing any original insights or reporting that NPR’s fine reporters can’t get themselves. He won’t get any guests that a booker and sound-tech couldn’t get for the show. Similarly, his junket to China didn’t offer any insights that weren’t from the guests.

I came very close to cutting my annual contribution over this issue.

Thank you for going to Denver WBUR!

The fact is that the conventions are not news. Party workers of both parties have gone to a great deal of trouble to make sure that the events are carefully scripted and as free of surprises as they know how to make them.

There was a great discussion about this on (NPR’s) On The Media last Friday with Jack Shafer of Slate, (http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/08/22/01) who also thinks that the conventions do not qualify as genuine news events.

If NPR wants to send ONE reporter, fine. But to set up bureaus there, or for individual stations (e.g., WBUR) to send teams, has no journalistic justification. It’s just spectacle; it’s not news.

The conventions are spectacle – carefully scripted with as little spontaneity as the organizers can arrange. Sure, something MIGHT happen that no one expects, but that could also happen at Massachusetts State House or on Harvard Ave in Allston. This does not justify the rapt attention and large budgets that NPR and the other networks (not to mention affiliates such as WBUR!) are lavishing on the conventions. As a contributing member of TWO different NPR stations I’m not happy with seeing my money spent this way. NPR as a whole should send one reporter; WBUR should stay home and not waste its contributors’ money.

In general, if the American public have any hope of attaining political maturity they need to learn the difference between spectacle and what really matters. I’m not surprised that CNN and Fox viewers, for whom there is no difference between entertainment and news, get all excited about this predictable superficiality. But I’m surprised that public radio listeners don’t recognize a waste of their money when they see it.

Please find time to talk about the “Open The Debates” rallies. Third party platforms have been crucial to our political history, and vital issues today are ignored in the presidential debates. Debates run by the same two-headed monster vying for our votes.

Open the debates, and after these two week long pep rallies we might have civic discussion that goes beyond “tastes great! less filling!”.

I expect a great speech in Denver–prose worthy of Lincoln, or poetry worthy of Walt Whitman, for the America of our era.