Bullying

So, a chubby local newsperson gets an email from a buff lawyer ripping her about her weight.

 Instead of doing what most people would do, ignoring the moron, she, in best local newsperson manner, decides to take it on air.

 In a highly misguided statement she claims she is standing up for all the bullied people in the world. The kids who have to deal with being called fat, or short, or gay or whatever.

 Ok, fine, except, no, you're not.

 You were not bullied Ms. Livingston and you apparently don't have any idea what the word means.

To be bullied would mean you would be singled out, repeatedly, by one person, or a group, and humiliated, threatened, and/or mocked by those you are often in contact with.

 Instead, you got one email from an idiot, some guy you don't know and never have to interact with.

 Really, you're going to compare THAT to the kid getting mocked on the bus every day. To having his books pushed on the floor. To being picked on constantly by people he has to face, EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 You don't even see how you trivialized bullying do you?

 You honestly believe you were bullied and you were standing up for what's right.

 You were wrong.

 If it was a co-worker who everyday was making comments, then yes, that could easily be bullying.

 But it wasn't, it was a random email from some schmuck.

 So please, delete the email, suck it up and just go about your life.

 Don't demean those who deal with bullying on a daily basis by comparing what they go through to an email from an idiot.

 This is one more reason why local news should be banned. If there was no local news, there would be no local newspeople. Do you know what a boon this would be for not having crap TV?

No One Cared

Its a moot point now, but I'll say it anyway:

If you didn't live in LA, or weren't traveling to LA this weekend, you didn't care in the slightest about the "Carmageddon" Interstate shutdown for repairs.

People whine and cry about the media being too biased. I'm whining and crying about the media being too stupid.

This WAS NOT NEWS. It might have been news in LA, I understand. But the coverage it has been getting (seeing the bylines on Google and Yahoo news, from sources as varied as Washington Times to the New York Times).

Now, I understand, lots of news organizations have bloggers that post under the umbrella of a newspaper or whatever.

I still respond, "So? How was this something relevant for a blogger in NY or DC to have a comment on it?"

Yup, here's a blogger in IL commenting on it, but no one cares what I think anyway.

Its a pathetic statement of our news organizations that the have pretty much given up truly covering events overseas or even events in the US anymore due to cost cutting and instead serve up pseudo-news tripe to get click throughs on the web and ad dollars on TV.

Its sad. We have the freedom of the press and we waste it on "Carmaggedon" and Casey Anthony.

Edit: I actually clicked on one of the links last week as I was curious as to what LA had to do with Carmaggedon.

This is Sad

Not having CNN, I never watched the Campbell Brown news hour. I don't know if she was a good or bad anchor. I do know the reasons she is stepping away are both noble and sad.

She flat out says she will not change her journalistic style to the frothing opinion "news" that she is slated against. And since her rating are so much lower, she's stepping away to let CNN figure out what they want to do.

Pound another nail in the coffin of journalistic integrity and get ready for even more screaming heads blabbering on cable news channels.

Its That Time of Year

Time for the "news" channels to "report" on holiday travel. Its going to be BUSY! WOW!!!!

You should plan accordingly! This is news? Honestly? Really???????

I'm sorry, to me, this is PROOF that TV news makes you stupider. Sure, even NPR does a little piece on holiday travel, but they at least aren't running the same piece every hour all day long.

I understand its cheaper to send a cameraman and a guy with a mic to the local airport to interview Jimbo about his holiday travel plans than it is to send someone to the Phillipines to report on whats going on there. But, honestly, its like this EVERY YEAR! Have you idiots not figured out its busy during the holiday season?

Bah, humbug

FYI: Dumber

Ok, this shouldn't be a news flash, but if you watch more than 30 minutes of cable tv views, you are dumber for it. Any of them. You become dumber the more you watch.

How do I know this? How can I make such a claim? I'm standing in one of my customer's waiting rooms as they get me a check, and one of those stations is on. They were running a poll where the question was "Would the world be a safer place without nuclear weapons."

Yes, that is exactly what the question was. So then their viewers were calling/emailing in and proving what numbskulls they had become.

But honestly, how can you call yourself a "news outlet" and post a question like that. There is no opinion. Yes, unequivocally YES the world would be safer without nuclear weapons. Pay no mind to the idiots who don't respond to the actual question. It would be.

Ask a real question if you must such as "Will nuclear weapons ever go away." Or "Should the US get rid of all its nukes no matter what." Those are questions where actual debate could occur.

Not what was up there. I was appalled. Though it merely reinforces what I have been assuming for about 7 years now. Cable news will make you stupid. No matter who you watch.

"Facts"

Facts are an interesting thing. Especially when presented in entertainment form. Yes, I'm talking about the news again. Specifically the 24 hour news networks.

Even though there are easily 24 hours of news to cover around the world, that's expensive. It is far cheaper to focus on a few stories, and then have hours of programming of commentary disguised as hard reporting.

The problem then becomes, all your "facts" are mashed in with commentary. Which, especially when key other facts are ommitted, completely changes the interpretation.

An example. In a discussion on the No Child Left Behind act it was stated that it was because of the Democrats. While it is a "fact" that Ted Kennedy was one of the original sponors of the bill, it was a bi-partisan initiative brought about at Bush's behest. He wanted this bill. He didn't sign it grudgingly, he made a special trip out to a school to sign it because he was so excited about it.

As recently as last year a Washington Post article quoted a Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra saying, "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently. The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control."

See, the "fact" that Democrats helped sponsor the bill was made to obscure the fact it was Bush's idea from the start.

This is the danger of news channels spending too much time in studio "analyzing" and not enough time out actually gathering information. Its far, far cheaper to stay in studio then it is to pay teams of reporters to travel all over getting the hard facts. This is only going to contribute to the polarization and dividing of our country. And it does no one a service.