Monday, December 08, 2008

Why I Hate the Media, Part Umpty-Million


Because they are stupid as shit.

Two unfinished wars, the greatest economic cratering in generations, a climate change crisis of apocalyptic proportions, a government completely broken and near bankrupt because of the idiocy of the last eight years of W, major manufacturing industries near collapse, and I don't know what all else near the breaking point. A major media figure scores a one-on-one interview with the President-Elect, the nation's first black President – and he wastes his time asking him stupid shit like this.

Fuck you, Brokaw. I used to think you had some kind of respectability or credibility, but you're just another "news" asshole.

I wonder if he managed to slip in a question about what kind of dog the Obama family is considering. Probably.

And then this is how Yahoo! frames it. Tiny print "economy 'to get worse'" with big ass print about a non-existent "issue," and Obama's "addiction."

You could take 90% of the media and drop them in the ocean and I'd shed not a tear.

6 comments:

The Critic said...

Not to mention of course the myriad of world stories such as the arrest of the alleged planner of the horrible, horrible terrorist attacks in India, but you know, Barack sneaks off for a cig now and then.

A + D said...

He's the first black president going into office with the shittiest economy since the depression, unemployment at an outstanding high, and further dwindling national relations in the global society. It's a miracle he's not sneaking off to shoot heroin.
D.

flaky genius said...

ah, the media--always there to remind me when i'm fed up with teaching how blessed i feel not to have pursued my first career choice.

.the smoking tomato. said...

I don't remember hearing you rail against "the media" before. It's interesting. Usually when one hears someone complain about "the media," it's coming from a fundamentalist Republican, (which I sure as hell know you're not) on one of the countless TV and radio shows which cater to them as they bellyache about all the supposedly liberal media out there (without being aware of the irony, let alone knowing how to spell "irony.") So it makes me have to shift gears a bit.

Sure, the majority of what one sees online and on TV is stupid. I consider that entertainment, though, not really news. Anything that happens on the TV is vacuous pabulum, so when it's idiotic that shouldn't really come as a surprise. Even if it's on the so-called "news." The people who make those programs know full well it's just entertainment--even though they'd probably not admit it outside of their board meetings. They give the American people (i.e. morons) what they want (i.e. crap to mesmerize their dim wits), fizzing lights and meaningless blather to soothe their cozy snoozing as the world goes ever so smoothly down the toilet. (Recent election notwithstanding.)

There is no difference between television news and Dancing with the Stars. Nada. Except, of course, for the fact that Dancing with the Stars is honest enough not to try to hide the fact that it's all just codswallop. (I'm guessing here, since I've never seen Dancing with the Stars.)

Here's something else that just occurred to me: as the proprietor of a blog, especially one which comments on current events, you, my friend, are part of "the media." I don't know what that means, but I thought I'd point it out.

All this can sound like I'm disagreeing with you, though. And I'm most certainly not. I certainly do not disagree with you pointing out the inanity of news media wasting time on whether or not Obama smokes cigarettes. And the White House dog junk. Who gives a fuck about that? It is interesting to me, though, that it comes as any surprise to someone as impressively perspicacious as yourself, good sir.

The Critic said...

Oh, my tomato, it doesn't come as a surprise, it just frustrates the living hell out of me and at times I have to publicly gripe or my head would probably explode.

And, yes, I suppose I am part of "the media" however broadly or narrowly we want to define that term. Let us say that I was perhaps using "the media" to refer too loosely to "political journalists" or "news services" or "traditional journalistic media outlets." My railery against them isn't of the Limbaugh crap type but just how tiresome it all is to me that everything is, as you say, presented as the latest fashion, the latest bloop bleep and sparkle of the shiny shinies.

I guess I keep on having the naivete to expect something better, but maybe that's because I've watched things like BBC news late night on PBS (or even PBS' own News Hour, where the motto is "we won't even remotely try to entertain you even by the sheerest unlikely accident"), and I think, my that was informative. Then I go about expecting that. Dopey, but a boy can dream, I guess.

flaky genius said...

I like to think of the media as people who get PAID to report the NEWS. You know, those people who began their careers as idealistic youth on the high school newspaper, thinking that they could change the world with words. People who felt called to the important task of being the watchdogs of the government. You know, those same people today who spend time on Barack's dog or name or "ties" to 60s malcontents instead of letting us know Iraq was a sham back when it mattered or the economy was on the verge of collapse before collapsing.

Bloggers aren't "the media." They're the watchdogs of the media.