Comments on: More reasons http://sodsbrood.com/dreams/2005/03/23/more_reasons/ Searching for the question to the answer of 42. Fri, 09 Jan 2009 00:29:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Mel B http://sodsbrood.com/dreams/2005/03/23/more_reasons/#comment-1008 Mel B Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:02:15 +0000 #comment-1008 You're right. People won't watch boring stuff. That's what CSPAN is for. I think I like seeing a good news magazine program every once in a while, but can never remember to watch one. But even the format of those is sometimes tiring. Especially if the program likes to sensationalize stuff. I think this person, even if no one else is, is tired of bite-sized morsels of news that say nothing, or the same nothings over and over. Though I am guilty of not reading my paper often enough (because I work on it, and I've read many of the stories already), I'd prefer to read more in-depth news. The lack of TV information is astounding, not to mention the lack of resposnibility about getting facts right, in most cases. But I'd prefer not to read about Michael Jackson. Or any of the other celebrity crap. Which is unfortunately a problem, considering the state I live in. But most of the fru-fru entertainment crap can at least be contained safely in the life section. You’re right. People won’t watch boring stuff. That’s what CSPAN is for.
I think I like seeing a good news magazine program every once in a while, but can never remember to watch one. But even the format of those is sometimes tiring. Especially if the program likes to sensationalize stuff.
I think this person, even if no one else is, is tired of bite-sized morsels of news that say nothing, or the same nothings over and over.
Though I am guilty of not reading my paper often enough (because I work on it, and I’ve read many of the stories already), I’d prefer to read more in-depth news. The lack of TV information is astounding, not to mention the lack of resposnibility about getting facts right, in most cases.
But I’d prefer not to read about Michael Jackson. Or any of the other celebrity crap. Which is unfortunately a problem, considering the state I live in.
But most of the fru-fru entertainment crap can at least be contained safely in the life section.

]]> By: Matthew http://sodsbrood.com/dreams/2005/03/23/more_reasons/#comment-1007 Matthew Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:05:05 +0000 #comment-1007 "Get a life" already is a game. It's called "The Sims," and its on-line and in real time. As to celebrity "news," I think this is a phenomenon created by the 24 hour news cycle. These channels need something to fill air time, otherwise the same real news gets recycled endlessly. It gets recycled endlessly anyway, but you see my point. You lose viewers fast if the story you are recycling every ten minutes is: "Bush Social Security Plan Unpopular Among Voters." The celebrity news at least mixes things up a bit, adds a dash of sex, vice, and decadence. Personally, I'd rather go back to the days when you watched the news at 6:00, if at all. For me, the Internet has replaced 24 hour news channels. We don't need Fox and CNN and MSNBC anymore. “Get a life” already is a game. It’s called “The Sims,” and its on-line and in real time.

As to celebrity “news,” I think this is a phenomenon created by the 24 hour news cycle. These channels need something to fill air time, otherwise the same real news gets recycled endlessly. It gets recycled endlessly anyway, but you see my point. You lose viewers fast if the story you are recycling every ten minutes is: “Bush Social Security Plan Unpopular Among Voters.” The celebrity news at least mixes things up a bit, adds a dash of sex, vice, and decadence.

Personally, I’d rather go back to the days when you watched the news at 6:00, if at all. For me, the Internet has replaced 24 hour news channels. We don’t need Fox and CNN and MSNBC anymore.

]]>