Leonard Pitts: Media's picture of Reagan era is incomplete

My boss just handed me this opinion column to read, after we had talked about the Reagan funeral coverage at break. We wondered how Carter's funeral will stack up to it (heaven forbid he die anytime soon), and how Ford's funeral might be treated. As neither of these presidents is viewed as a diety by either party, it's doubtful they will receive the over-extensive coverage Reagan did.

My favorite quotes:

"I refer, in case my drift goes uncaught, to the fulsome media tributes that have attended the former president's death. Not just fulsome, but uncritical, bereft of balance, lacking perspective. If all you knew of Ronald Reagan is what you saw on newscasts or read in the initial coverage from USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Miami Herald, you'd think him a cross between Wilford Brimley and John Rambo, a twinkle-eyed grandfather with a fondness for jelly beans who single-handedly saved America, kicked the Commies in the butt, and maybe even found a cure for the common cold while he was at it. You'd never know about what he said in Mississippi."

"So let me say this for the record: Some of us watch these proceedings with the sober respect you'd have for any loss of life, but also with dry eyes. The media have sold us a fraudulent version of history. Everybody loved Ronald Reagan, it says.

"Beg pardon, but ''everybody'' did not."

Thanks for saying what I was thinking, Mr. Pitts!