NOT... the news

[caz963]

You know, it occurred to me this morning as I arrived at school, that I'd spent about half an hour - 7-7.30 ish) listening to a news programme (Today on Radio 4) in which the 'news' was about things that hadn't happened.

Huh? Does that actually count as 'news'?

Brown NOT calling the election.

Louis Hamilton NOT winning the Formula 1 championship.

Alan Yentob NOT having mis-leadingly edited interviews. (And seriously, wtf?)

I wasn't naive enough to think that, having made his decision about the election, the news media would let it go, but really, I'm sick to the back teeth of it. I'm not Gordon Brown's biggest fan, but the poor sod was buggered if he did, buggered if he didn't. So whereas for the past couple of weeks, we've been up to our necks in "is he going to call an early election and when?", now, it's going to be weeks of "nyaaaa nyaaaa, Brown's a cissy". And that would be truly disturbing coming from John Humprhreys, let me tell you.

Is there anything actually going on in the world besides rugby, cricket and the (yawn!) Diana inquest (something else about which I couldn't give a toss)?

Comments

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

If John Humphreys goes on air and shouts "Nyaaaa nyaaaa, Brown's a sissy!" then I'm listening. That's quality programming.

And Ann Widdecombe is going. That's good news.

[hooloovoo_42]

And Ann Widdecombe is going

Unfortunately, not any time soon!

[teresadivicenzo.livejournal.com]

Yes, I do concede that one advantage of an early election would have been that.

[caz963.livejournal.com]

If John Humphreys goes on air and shouts "Nyaaaa nyaaaa, Brown's a sissy!" then I'm listening.

Well, yes. I might even pay to hear that!

[hooloovoo_42]

Although I wake up to Toady every day and usually catch the R2 "news" bulletins during the day, I have given up watching any TV news broadcasts unless something has *actually* happened - Saturday's rugby match led to footage of Aussie rugby players crying and so was worthwhile. I get more and more hacked off with what currently passes as either news or journalism. 99% of the time, the stories are mere speculation, rather than reporting actual events and the writing is appalling. The BBC one prided themselves as being the height of broadcasting standards, but newsreaders have trouble giving stories the correct inflections and reporters can come up with some utter crap. (I do like the BBC correspondents and often listen to FOOC just for the stories and think that the ITV news is a televised version of the Sun!)

No, anything important that happens in the world often gets missed in favour of reports that the inquest jury saw footage of "Diana's last moments"* , or something equally untrue or trivial.

* All this crap about CCTV shots of Diana's "last moments" is utter bollox. Her "last moments" occurred just before she died, whether that was in the back of the car, the ambulance or the hospital. Leaving the hotel was not her *last moments".

[caz963.livejournal.com]

The BBC one prided themselves as being the height of broadcasting standards, but newsreaders have trouble giving stories the correct inflections...

Quite. And someone should give them basic lessons in grammar. Seriously, the number of times I have yelled at the radio lately - "NO!! It's not the government ARE, it's the government IS, you pillock - it's a COLLECTIVE NOUN!" - well, it's been so often, I've lost count. And if Auntie can't get it right, then I think all hope for civilisation is lost...

And you're right about it being practically nothing aside from speculation. I'm not a big fan of Brown's, but I felt sorry for him this past couple of weeks, because whatever he did would have been wrong.
We used to be able to blame the advent of 24 hour rolling "news" for covering the crap, but sadly, it's spilled over onto regular telly.

[krystle-ab.livejournal.com]

we are in pre-electionn mode here in Australia, just wating for Howard will announce when.

[hooloovoo_42]

I have to say that fixed terms do have something going for them. But knowing when the election is going to be leaves far too much time for campaigning. So fixed terms are bad.

Hell, just shoot the politicians. That seems the best answer!

[caz963.livejournal.com]

just shoot the politicians

Would that be before or after we kill all the lawyers?

Wait - hang on. A lot of them are lawyers. Two in one - I love it! :)

[hooloovoo_42]

If we kill the lawyers early enough, they don't mutate into politicians. Result!

[krystle-ab.livejournal.com]

If only we had thought of this 11 years ago.

[krystle-ab.livejournal.com]

I think I would prefer the fixed elections, but there would have to be a cap on how much the campaings could spend n advertising (and maybe a general cap for governemnt adverts). I am preparing myself mentally for the onlslaught of adds as soon as the announcement is made.

Since I started watching The West Wing I have developed a real interest in politics so I really don't mind the campaign (just 20 political commercials druing one television program).

[loreley-se.livejournal.com]

Well, you know. I'd still rather hear about Gordon not calling an election than about Britney cutting off her hair or Lindsay caught driving under the influence...

[hooloovoo_42]

I'd go for 30 minutes of gloating about the rugby, myself. But I just like seeing the Aussies cry :-)

If we don't gloat now, we'll miss our chance when we get stuffed by the frogs next weekend.