The New York Times has a slogan: "All the news that's fit to print." I think it's a good thought, but has been changed. Just about everything gets printed nowadays. To the reading public's detriment. Here's a story I followed up that was hyped on my MSN "news" page. (I redacted some information to make a point.)
As if (name of man) doesn't have enough problems, his younger sister was arrested in (city and state), and charged with two felonies in connection with the operation of a methamphetamine lab, according to a report.
(Named) County police Sgt. (name) told the (city and state) (name of newspaper) that (name of woman), 34, of (city and state), was one of three arrested and charged with the manufacturing of methamphetamine and generation of hazardous waste.
Investigators said that they observed a drug buy at a gas station and that the suspects then led police to a condominium where an active meth lab was discovered in a bathtub.
The (name of newspaper) reported that the suspects were taken for decontamination before going to lockup.
In 1999, (name of woman) was charged with felony shoplifting after stealing clothes from a department store in (city and state). In 1996, she was charged with unlawful use of a weapon in connection with a drive-by shooting at a motel in (city and state).
According to the website, (city) is in southern (state), near (city), where (name of man) grew up.
(name of man), 41, has said he will retire (name of employer and rating at work).
In October of last year, it was alleged that he sent lewd photos and cell-phone texts to (name of woman, her employer, and type of work done) when (name of man) (worked with her employer) there in 2008. In December, (name of his company’s management organization) fined him $50,000 for failing to cooperate with its investigation.
Earlier this month, two massage therapists sued (man, identified by his type of work), claiming they lost their part-time jobs with (man’s employer) after complaining about sexually suggestive text messages from him. The (employer’s management) said it could not substantiate their claims.
Two persons are named in this story. One is the man. The second is the man’s sister. There are names of others who are involved in various actions with these two: a police officer, an employee at a related company, the newspaper that reported the story.
The bare bones of the story are:
A woman was arrested on charges of operating a meth lab. Her brother has also been involved in possible unlawful activities in the past three years.
Is this news? I can tell you it took place in a small, southern town and that it is not (unfortunately) an uncommon occurrence in today’s society.
So what makes this a news story that is listed as “popular searches on Bing?”
He is famous. So, is the story about him? Or his sister? Do you really care about Bret Favre’s personal life? Or his sister’s? How about the personal life of the president of General Motors? Or the personal life of the owner of your local gas station? Does this constitute an attack on that person? Everything is “alledged,” “charged,” “claimed.” Some news. Now, I’m just asking questions, but why have we become so gossipy? “Did you hear about Sally? Do you know what she did? Isn’t it just awful? (Sally is your next door neighbor.) This is just about all that can be said about this “news.”
News used to be information about events that could affect your life and give you something to make judgments about how you would live it. Now it’s just reports of violence, crime, fires, accidents, personal activities of people you only know about but don’t know, and other “shocking” things. Who wants to be so shocked? About all that really matters is what the overreaching, overreacting, governments are doing without regard to consequences and careful consideration, and the weather forecasts, which are 30-80% accurate.
I suppose business reports, statistics on financial activities, etc. are fine, but since I’m now retired they have very little effect on me except to ruin my retirement. (Hey, my best choice at present is to get a gigantic 1.24 percent on my savings!)
And if you still want the details about Favre, just Google him or check it out using Bing. All the gory details, and probably lots more, are there.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
All New Post
As the new year begins (well, the All New Year) I have an observation. I'd call it a complaint, but I have no suggestion about what to do, so I can't complain. It is the wrong and overuse of the phrase "all new."
When you say something is all new, what do you mean? A poem, identical in every way except the last word, would clearly not be "all new." Agree? An example was an old radio show which I think was "Can You Top This" on which a panel was given a joke, poem, or situation and was asked to come up with same topic jokes, poems, etc. and top the listener. I remember one: a limerick with the last line missing....
"A four legged hen in Tibet
Laid three sided eggs when she set.
She had two-headed chickens;
She said, "What the dickens?"
...and here the panel must suggest closing lines.
Some suggestions were:
"Must be that new rooster I met."
"It must have been something I et."
and so on.
Would you call each of the suggestions an "all new" limerick?
Scenario is, I was watching TV and saw a promo for a show that I had seen a couple of times. It said the show was "all new." So I watched it. Well, the cast was the same. The setting was the same. The situation was pretty much the same. The interactions between characters was the same. Some of the jokes were the same. The writers were the same. The music was the same. Where was all the "new" stuff? I think I would call it a new episode, but "all new?" Nope. There was very little new.
In the old days we had TV shows like "Studio One" (1948), "Robert Montgomery Presents," "Kraft Televison Theater" (1947), and "The Twilight Zone" (1959). They were all new every week. I'll grant that sometimes the same actors would show up, with some groups being used repeatedly, but always as different characters. Rod Serling wrote a lot of the "Twilight Zone" scripts, but there were other authors who contributed. I always liked Charles Beaumont a lot.
My point is that the phrase "all new" is overused now, and inaccurate. It's like "free gift" (I would never want to pay for a "gift," would you?).
Why don't they just say, "new episode?" You would know it wasn't a repeat and that's probably all they meant. And they would get me off their backs!
When you say something is all new, what do you mean? A poem, identical in every way except the last word, would clearly not be "all new." Agree? An example was an old radio show which I think was "Can You Top This" on which a panel was given a joke, poem, or situation and was asked to come up with same topic jokes, poems, etc. and top the listener. I remember one: a limerick with the last line missing....
"A four legged hen in Tibet
Laid three sided eggs when she set.
She had two-headed chickens;
She said, "What the dickens?"
...and here the panel must suggest closing lines.
Some suggestions were:
"Must be that new rooster I met."
"It must have been something I et."
and so on.
Would you call each of the suggestions an "all new" limerick?
Scenario is, I was watching TV and saw a promo for a show that I had seen a couple of times. It said the show was "all new." So I watched it. Well, the cast was the same. The setting was the same. The situation was pretty much the same. The interactions between characters was the same. Some of the jokes were the same. The writers were the same. The music was the same. Where was all the "new" stuff? I think I would call it a new episode, but "all new?" Nope. There was very little new.
In the old days we had TV shows like "Studio One" (1948), "Robert Montgomery Presents," "Kraft Televison Theater" (1947), and "The Twilight Zone" (1959). They were all new every week. I'll grant that sometimes the same actors would show up, with some groups being used repeatedly, but always as different characters. Rod Serling wrote a lot of the "Twilight Zone" scripts, but there were other authors who contributed. I always liked Charles Beaumont a lot.
My point is that the phrase "all new" is overused now, and inaccurate. It's like "free gift" (I would never want to pay for a "gift," would you?).
Why don't they just say, "new episode?" You would know it wasn't a repeat and that's probably all they meant. And they would get me off their backs!
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Where is the information?
Global Warming: a real or unreal problem?
I recently saw an interview with a man (I believe from England) who stated that the underlying reason given for global warming was a layer of gasses in the upper atmosphere that trap heat around the planet. This is the "Greenhouse effect." His statement was that all the computer models on planet temperatures was based, more or less, on this effect.
He also stated that it was all theory, but there was a scientist who has been measuring these gasses for over 20 years and that (guess what?) there is no change in them. In other words, his implication is that there is no Greenhouse around planet earth. That would mean all the computer models are incorrectly biased by a physical effect that isn't there.
I have also heard that the average temperature of the earth is based on 1) various and changing data and data points, 2) appears to match solar activity more than the computer models on Greenhouse effect, and 3) has actually gone down over the past few years.
My questions now are:
Has anyone else heard anything about this measurement of gasses to detect the Greenhouse?
Has anyone confirmed that the data collection process is standard or compatible over time?
Has anyone determined whether or not collected data has or has not been tampered with, edited, or otherwise tinkered with?
Is the planet warming or cooling?
What time span is needed to confirm anything about average planetary temperatures?
Is Pluto really not a planet? (threw that on in to see if you are watching)
Can man's activity really have any long range impact on the planet? This issues rises when some volcanic activity seems to do more over a period of time than anything we do.
Should I buy a warmer coat or can I get another 20 winters out of this one? (Being 71 puts me in much the same boat as outgoing congressmen -- I can screw up the system and never have to pay for it!)
Somebody help me with this. But the questions have to be answered directly. I'm tired of spin.
I recently saw an interview with a man (I believe from England) who stated that the underlying reason given for global warming was a layer of gasses in the upper atmosphere that trap heat around the planet. This is the "Greenhouse effect." His statement was that all the computer models on planet temperatures was based, more or less, on this effect.
He also stated that it was all theory, but there was a scientist who has been measuring these gasses for over 20 years and that (guess what?) there is no change in them. In other words, his implication is that there is no Greenhouse around planet earth. That would mean all the computer models are incorrectly biased by a physical effect that isn't there.
I have also heard that the average temperature of the earth is based on 1) various and changing data and data points, 2) appears to match solar activity more than the computer models on Greenhouse effect, and 3) has actually gone down over the past few years.
My questions now are:
Has anyone else heard anything about this measurement of gasses to detect the Greenhouse?
Has anyone confirmed that the data collection process is standard or compatible over time?
Has anyone determined whether or not collected data has or has not been tampered with, edited, or otherwise tinkered with?
Is the planet warming or cooling?
What time span is needed to confirm anything about average planetary temperatures?
Is Pluto really not a planet? (threw that on in to see if you are watching)
Can man's activity really have any long range impact on the planet? This issues rises when some volcanic activity seems to do more over a period of time than anything we do.
Should I buy a warmer coat or can I get another 20 winters out of this one? (Being 71 puts me in much the same boat as outgoing congressmen -- I can screw up the system and never have to pay for it!)
Somebody help me with this. But the questions have to be answered directly. I'm tired of spin.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
The decade in a nutshell...
Here we go again. Just as the media got the "turn of the century" wrong, they are at it again with the "end of the decade." It always fascinates me how the general public is fascinated with dates that end in "0" as being something important --- like God is a power of ten kind of guy.
Think of it; the first year was year 1. There was no year 0. So the first ten years were 1-10. And the second decade began with year 11. When you carry this forward you see that the second century started with year 101. And so forth. The last year of the 20th century was 2000. And the 21st century began with Jan. 1, 2001.
The media got this mostly wrong, although a few places noted the discrepancy. The straight thinkers were swept way by the tsunami of "it ends in 0" advocates. This will happen again now with the "passing of the first decade of the 21st century" (sic). Since the last year of the first decade is 2010, they have jumped the gun by twelve months!
How can we trust the media, who gets something as simple as this wrong, to report the complexities of the news right? What became of the news reportors who could actually report news without offering their personal opinions? Indeed, what become of teachers in journalism class who could teach journalism instead of propaganda? I guess I grew up in a different world.
So, roll with the tide. Just remember that they are simply wrong, about virtually everything, no less! It's your safest position to take.
It comes to my attention (only took three days) that a decade can be ANY ten year period, starting and stopping anytime you want. So, 1997-2006 is a decade. However, I still think the "it ends in 0 and is therefore notable" crowd is nutty. And it becomes definitely wrong when ordinal numbers are used: the century's first decade is 2001-2010. Period. Anyway, it's nice to know there is an "out."
Here we go again. Just as the media got the "turn of the century" wrong, they are at it again with the "end of the decade." It always fascinates me how the general public is fascinated with dates that end in "0" as being something important --- like God is a power of ten kind of guy.
Think of it; the first year was year 1. There was no year 0. So the first ten years were 1-10. And the second decade began with year 11. When you carry this forward you see that the second century started with year 101. And so forth. The last year of the 20th century was 2000. And the 21st century began with Jan. 1, 2001.
The media got this mostly wrong, although a few places noted the discrepancy. The straight thinkers were swept way by the tsunami of "it ends in 0" advocates. This will happen again now with the "passing of the first decade of the 21st century" (sic). Since the last year of the first decade is 2010, they have jumped the gun by twelve months!
How can we trust the media, who gets something as simple as this wrong, to report the complexities of the news right? What became of the news reportors who could actually report news without offering their personal opinions? Indeed, what become of teachers in journalism class who could teach journalism instead of propaganda? I guess I grew up in a different world.
So, roll with the tide. Just remember that they are simply wrong, about virtually everything, no less! It's your safest position to take.
It comes to my attention (only took three days) that a decade can be ANY ten year period, starting and stopping anytime you want. So, 1997-2006 is a decade. However, I still think the "it ends in 0 and is therefore notable" crowd is nutty. And it becomes definitely wrong when ordinal numbers are used: the century's first decade is 2001-2010. Period. Anyway, it's nice to know there is an "out."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
