I gotta be honest. I've been so bogged down with family problems, I haven't felt much like blogging or going on the Internet. Of course, I have to check my family/friends email account for the latest drama. Wedged in between that sort of stuff are the inane forwards I get. A few are funny. Most are shit I can't delete quick enough. You know the type.
Cutesy pics of puppies and kitties
Stories that are supposedly inspirational
When I do get on the net, I'm usually looking for things worth looking at and that serve as a temporary distraction from my insane reality. The temporary distractions have to qualify as something substantial, however. And by substantial, I mean it has to offer either real humor, newsworthy stories or solid entertainment. And by solid entertainment, I don't mean something like a goofy, obviously scripted Reality TV show where a thing called a Snooki has a nonsensical argument with another sub human thing that appears as if it has dipped it's face in a large vat of make up.
If (un)Reality TV shows aren't one of the signs of the End Times for the human race, I'll be surprised. These morons and anyone stupid enough to watch this shit should be deleted, as well.
What I still find amusing, annoying, sad and mind boggling is what passes as news these days.
I was checking out this website and it has given out, what they believe, are guidelines to what makes a story newsworthy. I don't agree with a few of these supposed factors that makes news worthy of conveying to the masses. For example:
Where they say that famous people should get more coverage just because they're famous. For an example, they gave the possible scenario where the Queen of England breaks her arm. That's news- to them. Not to me. I don't care what celebrity, politician or Oompa Loompa breaks their dick or ruptures a spleen. That's a private medical matter that's boring to me, personally. That bit of news I heard the other day about the Queen throwing a hissy fit over Prince William not consulting with her over his wedding details was an example of stupidity for many reasons. For one, that's a personal family thing that the media didn't need to say anything about. And two, Prince William should have told her that it's his and his fiancee's wedding and the Queen should go act like she's important somewhere else. I might also add that he should tell the bitter old nosy bitch to shove her asinine complaints way up her royal hoo hoo.
Suck on that, Grandmummy!
Timing or state of currency, according to the same website's authors is a big factor, too, as far as something being newsworthy. For me, that isn't as crucial as the content. Something substantial that happened a month ago may be something I haven't heard about yet- and want to know about. And certainly, when you're watching Network TV news, half of the time you're not watching anything substantial, anyway. More often than not, you'll receive a deluge of information about the antics of a celebrity (like Charlie Sheen or Lindsay Lohan) and how they've gotten drunk, coked up, got naked on a merry-go-round and had sex with three albino midgets earlier that day. Or something like that. Who cares? That's on them. I don't care how many times they've gone through rehab. That's their personal business.
I know celebrity bullshit "news" is manna from heaven for the ignorant, but goddamn, does it have to be everywhere all the time? Give me a break! By the way, for all you folks living in Great Britain, that's America's sorry excuse for royalty-Celebrities. At least for some retards.
Bottom line: I'd rather hear, read or see significant news at the expense of up to the minute current news that is actually insignificant.
The Following Is Also Not News:
*Politicians bickering with other politicians in an endless stalemate of interests and agendas.
*Reports of doctors saying that eating too much of this or that is unhealthy and then contradicting themselves three months later to say eating this or that is okay again.
*Who, exactly, won the big million dollar lottery. I'm sure the person winning that lottery really wants their name announced so everyone can badger them for money.
*The latest electronic gadget
*High school sports game scores
*Anything having to do with Facebook, especially the nerdy boy Facebook creator, Mark Fuckburger (or whatever his name is). It's hard to believe they made Fuckburger "Person of The Year" in some popular U.S. magazine. Has he even gone through puberty yet?
*And more I can't think of at the moment because the coffee buzz is starting to wear off.
Like I've mentioned once before on this blog, Network TV news is (at least here in the U.S.) usually motivated by cross sector partnerships of big corporations, politicians with self serving agendas and self interest groups. You're only allowed to see what they want you to see. I'm not a conspiracy freak. You just have to do a bit of research to see who's owned by whom or who's being manipulated by whom. Reporters are paid their salaries to not say certain things against their employers/corporations. When you compare some of the more truthful and revealing news sources you can find on the Internet to the news you see on TV, those Internet news sources are more often accurate or dead on accurate. Not always, but the ones I check out are usually reliable.
The Following Subjects Are News:
*The deaths and strife of a mass of people (e.g. Haiti earthquake of last year, Flooding in Australia, The recession and unemployment issues, Wars). When major news corporations report about events such as this, they will usually stop reporting about it when the "next big news item" comes along, long before the strife or devastation has ended for the suffering populace in the region affected.
*REAL technological, scientific, medical breakthroughs that greatly improve or save people's lives.
*Climate change, environmental pollution.
*Positive solutions toward getting away from our dependency on coal and fossil fuels.
*Everyday people saving others' lives.
*And more I can't think of because the coffee buzz has completely worn off now.
But I think you get the picture, or at the very least, my point of view of what is truly newsworthy and what the media, in all it's varied forms, considers news. Your perspective may be different and I respect that. What I won't respect or tolerate is an organization or media outlet that is so completely biased that they will report something that is misleading or a total falsehood. And yeah, I know certain news is reported for reasons of ratings and/or greed- but that doesn't mean it's right and should be accepted.
When will people learn?