On ABC news, I ran across this quote from Rudy Lopez, of the Los Angeles police department:
"[This is an] extremely tense situation," Lopez said. "We call this a manhunt. We approach it cautiously because of the propensity of what has already happened."
Propensity? Really, Rudy? Propensity? In the words of Inigo Montoya: “I don’t think that word means what you think it means” – LMAO!
How cool – this goes along very well with my whining on the subject.
As you probably know by my previous postings, I don't watch the news. Where I work, however, they have CNN on the TV in the lunchroom. Rick Sanchez has a show on at that time, and occasionally I watch a little (though with the very poor subtitles as there is no audio). Rick seems to be a pretty good guy, and is reasonably even-handed when doing interviews and so forth, so I don't fault him personally. However, I just don't get the point of the whole dang show. They like to say "it's YOUR newscast!" and that it is interactive news which is "audience driven". It seems to me that this takes newscasting's already shaky credibility and drops what little was left right down the toilet. Why on earth does anybody care what "Joe from Pacoima" thinks… about anything? I sure don't. I don't know Joe, and since I've noticed that people who call in to talk shows and so forth usually are idiots, I inherently don't trust Joe's opinion. I can get the same unqualified drivel from the myriad of blogs on the web. Um, like this one. I guess. Anyhow, my point is that it's not "news" if it's stories which seem more appropriate for Jerry Springer, focusing on the hype and trivialities, and supported by commentary from Joe Q. Public. Where's the credibility?
Oh yea, and the show is really into Tweets. BZZZZZZTTTT! Ring up no sale. Say no more, Squire!
Update: Apparently CNN felt the same way – Rick's show is no more.
I know a lot of people who are news junkies and watch the news on TV, read it on-line, and pore over newspapers because they “have to know what’s going on”. While I applaud their dedication, I wonder if perhaps it is somewhat misguided.
I have noticed that whenever I see or read a news bit on a topic about which I am familiar, the errors and omissions are glaring and irritating. It seems to be that about 20% of the coverage I see is correct. That means a whopping 80% of the time, they are wrong, wrong, wrong – frequently to the point where if that was your only source of information on the subject, you would be better off not reading/seeing it at all.
Now, I’m not deluding myself that I know everything about everything. There are many things about which I am ignorant. However, given the news media’s track record on small amount of things I DO know about, it’s logical to assume a similar accuracy level for things I DON’T know about.
Ergo – I watcheth not.
Ok, so reporters and the media in general is a HUGE topic, so I’ll try to be somewhat brief and only touch on a couple of areas (for now… bwahahaha!)
Todays’ topic: Reporters and their “demands”. Recently, when a couple “crashed” a white house party, the media was all over it. They examined every angle, and had experts talking about security and so forth. On more than one occasion, I heard “We’re demanding to know how this happened”, and “We’re demanding to know who is responsible”. OK, reality check time! Is the reporter suddenly director of the security staff? Perhaps they should demand to know the toilet cleaning schedule, and why isn’t it more often? Perhaps they should demand an accurate accounting of paperclip usage in the white house. Perhaps they should… um, mind their own business? Yes, that’s what I’m thinking.
I can see demanding an explanation of a human rights violation, or something similar. That’s entirely different. That is a useful function the media serves, as a watchdog, and a force that makes people think twice before doing something which will be unacceptable to the public.
In my humble opinion, reporters frequently need a more realistically sized pair of underwear.