Does Hillary Clinton want Barack Obama dead? Well, maybe in her wildest dreams, but doubtfully in anything approaching reality.

It was clear to even the biggest idiot that her recent remarks concerning the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy had nothing to do with her expressing a sinister wish list.

She was being interviewed by a local newspaper and was being asked about why she wasn’t dumping out of the campaign to make way for Obama.

She was pointing out—as even the local newspaper has agreed—that in years past the selection of a party’s presidential nominee usually took till about June. It was like that for her husband, she said. And, it was like that for Robert Kennedy—only he never lived long enough to get the expected nomination because he was gunned down in California in June.

Talk about no time to think! In less than 24 hours, her remarks were on some newspaper websites, the Drudge report, and probably circled the globe a few dozen times.

Pundits were on the air and seemingly under your kitchen table expressing all sorts of views about what Clinton had said. Her campaign went into deep defense mode. She was forced to backtrack all the way to England, it seemed.

Was there anything really gained by such rapid transmission of information? I think not.

But maybe much to lose?

Ever notice that severe thankyouitis infects most news interviews on television and radio?

Coming after the interview, this mannered civility operates as follows: The anchor thanks the interviewee and then waits for a response. The usual “You’re welcome” or “My pleasure” or “Glad to do it” or “Sure” will suffice. Even “Screw off, dude!” But the interviewee must say something, anything. It’s mandatory. When no response is immediately forthcoming, there is an awkward pause—two seconds feeling like two minutes—until the interviewee gets the message. You can almost see the light bulb click on above the sucker’s head

These irritating thankyous extend to TV anchors gratuitously thanking reporters who are obligated to sit on the news set so they can be asked pre-planned questions live after their stories air on tape. My generic favorite goes like this: “Thanks for coming in.”

Oh, please!

If only these thankyous were accompanied by subtitles revealing what anchors were really thinking. As in: Thanks for coming in—because if you didn’t we’d break your legs. Or Thanks for coming in because your contract requires it.

By the way, thanks for reading this blog entry.

Um…I said thanks for reading this.

Waiting…

Still waiting…

No Time To Think—the book—delves into the ramifications of the ever increasing speed of mass communications and the impact on all of our lives.

But a visit to any doctor’s office will confirm that this rush to judgment has just as much impact on the medical profession.

Various estimates, derived from various studies, reveal that, on average, a doctor will see you for about 7 minutes—this after having waiting maybe three weeks for an appointment and another hour or so stuck in the waiting room reading copies of U.S. News & World Report from 2005.

Of course it is all about economics: it costs so damn much nowadays to run a medical practice, to make money, you have to have faster turnover than a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise.

Still, one can’t help but wonder how good a doctor’s opinion can be after a visit lasting just seven minutes?

I thought about this the other day when waiting for my own doctor to come into the room where I was waiting for him. I was in a bit of a rush myself, so I asked his nurse if she knew how long it might be before the doctor would make his grand appearance?

“He just went into the other room,” she says. “But don’t worry,” she assures me. “It’ll be a quick visit…maybe five minutes at most,” she states.

A whole five minutes!! Wow, I thought. How did that patient get so lucky that he could command five full minutes of the doc’s valuable time?

No matter, I figured. I will rate at least that much time if not more!

What I didn’t count on was this: When the doctor did step into the examination room for my evaluation, in short order the following things occurred almost simultaneously—The phone on the wall lit up like a Christmas tree and, within seconds, the doc was buzzed to pick up the phone for a call he needed to take from another physician.

Tick, tick. Time was going by. My time!

While he was talking on the phone to the other doctor about some other patient’s problem, his Blackberry started to vibrate, or whatever it is Blackberry’s do to get your attention. He whips it out from his jacket breast pocket and starts reading emails or something.

Tick, tick. More time was going by. My time!

Finally, after about three and half minutes on the phone and cruising through his emails, he turned his attention to my problem…for a whole 4 minutes. But I was blessed. He spent 30 seconds with me longer than the average.

You can tell a lot about a TV program’s demographics by its commercials.

Take the drug ads that run almost wall-to-wall on network newscasts, affirming the vast bulk of their viewers to be antique, infirm and in general physical collapse. Can’t stop peeing or can’t start? Not to worry. Have we got a miracle drug for you.

The biggest hoot of all are ads promoting medications for erectile dysfunction. Yes, something to cure what ails Mr. Happy. But beware possible side effects: If your erection lasts more than four hours, seek medical assistance.

Picture the reaction on the other end of the line when you call 9-1-1 in a panic and announce that your erection won’t go away. Or you can rush to you doctor and hope no one in the waiting room notices.

Howard Rosenberg is the Pulitzer Prize-winning former television critic for The Los Angeles Times, where his provocative column was distributed nationally and widely read by decision makers in the media and entertainment industry for 25 years.

Witty, outspoken and known for his courageous views, Rosenberg was named the nation’s best TV critic in a survey of his colleagues conducted by Electronic Media. In addition to the Pulitzer, Rosenberg earned two National Headliner awards and numerous other citations for his print commentaries.

Rosenberg has been interviewed on many major national news programs from ABC’s “Nightline” to CNN’s “Larry King Live.” He has been a sports media commentator on ESPN and was the author of the nationally syndicated satirical cartoon strip, Airwaves.

At the University of Southern California, Rosenberg teaches news ethics in the Annenberg School of Communication and critical writing and a TV symposium in the School of Cinematic Arts. In addition, he served seven years on the University of Georgia’s prestigious Peabody Awards board, which hands out the premier individual prizes in electronic media.

An anthology of Rosenberg’s columns and essays, Not So Prime Time: Chasing the Trivial on American Television, was published by Ivan R. Dee in Chicago. Upon publication, Publisher’s Weekly called it a “delectable book of crisp, witty and caustic criticism” in a starred review. Said Kirkus Reviews: “Rosenberg is the real thing—a serious, thoughtful, lucent writer whose low-brow beat appears almost incongruous…No one has mapped TV’s terrain more thoroughly and starkly.” And Bill Moyers proclaimed: “Read this and you’ll see why the Pulitzer jurors said Howard is the best.”

Prior to joining The Los Angeles Times, Rosenberg was television critic at the Louisville Times (KY), and before that a reporter the Moline Dispatch (IL). He began his journalism career as editor of the White Bear Press, a weekly paper near St. Paul, Minnesota.

A native of Kansas City, Missouri, Rosenberg earned a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of Oklahoma and a master’s degree in political science from the University of Minnesota. He and his wife, Carol, reside in a suburb of Los Angeles with a cockatiel, a cat and stacks and stacks of videotapes and DVDs.

You can reach Howard directly at howardrosenberg@notimetothinkbook.com.

Charles S. Feldman’s nearly 20 years as an investigative television and print journalist have straddled the crucial juncture of “old-fashioned” reporting and the introduction of the 24 hour news cycle, lending him an unique perspective to the advantages and pitfalls that this change has brought about.

In the course of his career, Feldman’s experience has ranged across all media platforms: television, radio, newspapers, magazines and online. He worked as an on air correspondent for CNN in New York and Los Angeles reporting on terrorism and organized crime, among other things. He is currently a regular contributor to the CBS all-news radio station in Los Angeles as well as the CBS Radio Network.

Feldman has written and/or reported for publications such as, New York Magazine, Parade, The New York Post, The New York Daily News; Playboy (International Edition); Philadelphia Magazine and The Catholic Digest, among others. He was also a regular contributor to the Reuters News Service.

Feldman holds a bachelor’s degree in political science from Brooklyn College of the City University of New York and a master’s degree in journalism from New York University. Born in Brooklyn, he has lived most of his adult life in New York City. He now lives in Los Angeles, where he previously taught at the University of Southern California School of Journalism, and currently serves as a freelance journalist and media consultant. He maintains his own blog at The Feldman Blog and regularly contributes to the real estate investment site BiggerPockets.

You can reach Charles directly at charlesfeldman@notimetothinkbook.com.