It never ceases to amaze how much news programs can drone on about a story with out any new information. I guess it’s just easier and more profitable to speculate about what might have happened in place of covering real news stories that effect our lives and livelihoods. Are we becoming a culture of “what if” crazed conspiracy theorists? It seems even rational people among us are not immune to this speculative masterbation. Am I out on a limb by myself, or is there anybody else who believes this phenomenon is occurring? Is it a problem?
Danny
speculative masterbation.Even though the minister told us never ever to do it, who could resist. ;-)
I think its part of the “infotainment” phenomenon.
Welcome, Handyman. You are exactly correct. It drives me crazy when all the “news” sources focus on one event, present it in the most dramatic way, have no new information, but just keep repeating the same speculations for a week or two then all switch to the next one, usually of little value for our lives.
Occam
It never ceases to amaze how much news programs can drone on about a story with out any new information. I guess it's just easier and more profitable to speculate about what might have happened in place of covering real news stories that effect our lives and livelihoods. Are we becoming a culture of "what if" crazed conspiracy theorists? It seems even rational people among us are not immune to this speculative masterbation. Am I out on a limb by myself, or is there anybody else who believes this phenomenon is occurring? Is it a problem? DannyI agree. There is nothing more annoying than a news program that tells us over and over that there is no new information but it ever stops the anchors and their guests from interminably discussing what they have admitted they don't know. Lois
I think its part of the "infotainment" phenomenon.Thom Hartmann explained it really well. It used to be that the news side of a TV station was considered a money loser, but fulfilled a regulation that required stations to broadcast a certain amount in the public's interest as a requirement for being allowed a certain amount of the public radio bandwidth. Some law removed or weakened that regulation and allowed the entertainment and news organizations to be combined. That in turn made the news side required to turn a profit. Just like anytime the profit motive rears its ugly head, things go south.
Come now, we can’t have people thinking about realism.
They might cease being confused by bullsh!t.
psik
I think the “winner” so far is CNN’s Don Lemon asking, “Is it preposterous [to think a black hole caused Flight 370 to vanish?”] and then former Department of Transportation General Inspector Mary Schiavo replying, “A small black hole would suck in our entire universe.”
Ummm, yes Don Lemon it is preposterous to think a black hole is responsible.
And no Mary Schiavo, a small black hole would not suck in our entire universe.
Schiavo then went on to say that she “absolutely loved” such theories - and not for any comic value they provide.
My all-time favorite stupid question was on the SF Bay Area news one morning during a murder trial of a man who killed his wife and dumped her body in the bay. While interviewing a legal expert the talking head asked, “Are there any surprises expected in the Peterson trial today?”
I can’t remember what the legal expert said, but he should have said, “Um. No. If they were surprises we would not be expecting them.”
I have to admit, the black hole discussion just makes me shake my head. Another piece of evidence that many journalists are incompetent. There is no excuse for a journalist on national news being so ignorant of science.
I agree, Darron, but they do it all too frequently. Sort of like an interviewer asking an opthalmologist, “Well, what colors DO blind people see?” :lol:
Occam
OK. That one just went to the top of my Stupid Questions List.
Sort of like the set of stupid questions asked by lawyers that was published a while ago. As I recall, one went about like this:
Lawyer: Can you be sure the man you examined was dead?
Coroner: Yes, I can.
Lawyer: But how can you be absolutely certain the man you examined was dead?
Coroner: Because his brain is sitting in a jar on my desk.
Lawyer: But aren’t there some circumstances in that case where the man wouldn’t be dead?
Coroner: Yes, I suppose he could be alive and practicing law somewhere.
Occam