Hot News, Not News, Hot Mess, You Lose

It's official. I am now at an age where too many things irritate me. I wake up in a decent mood and, after 2 minutes of scanning the news, I'm grouchy. News is no longer informative as it is irritating, rabble-rousing, divisive, and stupidly out together. 

I have assigned personalities to certain news sources and their followers. I can truly almost see them as actual persons.

Right Wing Ricky & Ruthie - the schoolyard instigators that stand on the sidelines yelling "Fight, fight". Sometimes they taunt the scariest bullies with "You're going to let him talk about you like that?" They scurry around the school, spreading salacious rumors to get everyone more riled up. They have a side hustle selling snacks and trinkets during the dustups so the bigger the crowds...

Left Wing Luke & Lucy - the irritating kids who want to invite every underdog and weirdo to their birthday parties. The underdogs and weirdos are always the folks who are picked on by Fox. Instead of taking the high road, they will pick on their bullies, just using a better dictionary so they can claim to be morally and intellectually superior.

Pete & Patti Progressive - the stoner kids. Sometimes, they are really laid back and mellow and just want us all to get along but they can swing right or left, depending on who is where in the schoolyard fight. Stoner that they are, they do have a mean streak. It's hidden but there and can be lethal when unleashed.

Spectator Sam & Sally - the ones who copy and paste everyone else's personalities as needed. They play whichever side they can. They just want to be popular and noticed. They are the kids hoping to parlay whatever they can into a high Instagram following so they can make the big bucks without working too hard.

Then there is most of the rest of the crowd - call them Dave & Daisy Dullard - the kids on the sidelines. We usually pick one kid to idolize and support, no matter what. Even if they ignore us or hate us, we will be there, supporting them to the end. Or until another kid comes along who "gets us" better than the old kid. We get really loud and start flexing when someone comes along who says out loud all the curse words we have only been whispering.

Meanwhile, over in the library, there are a few of us - Critical Kate & Kwami -  who are hitting the books hard. We mostly ignore the playground madness because we are busy studying the history of the school system. We are busy trying to understand where everything went so wrong. Of course, we don't matter much during our school days but we are hoping to someday make a difference in the "real world". We are going to need a bigger bullhorn though.

Finally, there's Ivan & Ilsa InstaInfluencer. They gave up on the schoolyard and are taking an indefinite break from reality by focusing on brawns, beauty, and booze. They hang near the outer perimeter, fangirling and bromancing each other. This crowd's pretty exclusive. You need money, looks, makeup magic, or Photoshop skills to break in. They don't really care too much about the real world because they have created their own "imageverse" where relevance is based on Likes, following, dollars, and other trickery.

The biggest problem I have with most news sources is that they are in it for the money, ratings, and personal popularity. I have a niece who is straight and married but I do think she'd switch to be with Rachel Maddow. She calls Maddow a "rock star" and that's just about how she treats the newswoman...

I find it weird and scary that there are so many reports of news "personalities" becoming more important to our society than they should be. They are news presenters, not heroes.

On that same track, it annoys me about the news is that the presenters are getting to be more important than the news itself. I should not know or care about the presenters' sexual, political, or religious leanings. I should not know or care about who they are dating, divorcing, or cheating on and with.

When I watch the news, I don't want to have to question whether it's biased because of the personal feelings of the news reader. 

And why is it that some news sites spend so much time letting readers/watchers know about news media ratings? Do they want to be presenting us with news and information or do they want our Facebook likes and popularity vote?

See? This is why I have to drink hibiscus tea and take pills to keep my blood pressure under control.

When we talk about the U.S. being in a collective state of road rage, we blame each other. No one is looking at the media. They started this smoking dumpster fire that is spreading toxic fumes throughout the nation.

The crazy politicians - Right, Left, Loony, etc. - wouldn't have so much power to play us for fools if the media wasn't playing them for ratings.  Most of the nuts that are sitting in Washington - wielding power of varying degrees - would not be there if the Media hadn't turned all of us into InstaNews junkies.

I want to get back to the days of reading (mostly) impartial news reports and having to think about what it all means. When my nieces were in school and claimed to have no homework, I would assign them to watch the news and write a summary. I couldn't do that now - not unless I wanted them having to edit out all the madness.

While I am on this rant, I want to throw some shade at some of the supposed "trusted" news sources. The other day, I was perusing the AP site. One of the hot-button stories had to do with Taylor Swift. No offense meant toward Miss Swift, but I don't think that a pop singer should be in "serious" news for being a pop singer. I didn't screenshot the site that day but here is a recent screenshot:

If this is in order of importance...SMH

Google News also sucks in its own way. On the one hand, there is a browser extension that allows readers to edit out mentions of anything they don't want to see. The problem is, by the time I block out the nonsense, there's apparently no news left to read.

Just 1 week of blocking...

I gave up. Now, I rarely bother to look at Google News - unless I'm looking for the latest Amazon deals. These days, I'm checking several sites and realize that almost all news has a bias.

Here are my daily stops for news (in no particular order):

• C-SPAN
• Reuters
• Mediaite
• BBC (for US and Canada mainly)
• AP News
• Bloomberg
• The Hill
• Christian Post
• The Jerusalem Post 
• News Nation
• Politico
• I watch NBC News online occasionally.
• Futurism

My challenge is to not think about news as anything other than information. It's not meant to shape my personal beliefs or my character. It's just information. Period. After reading the news I have an idea of what is currently being reported on. I have to take into account that there are a lot of things not being reported on. This is why I sometimes steel myself and go take a peek at The Artist Site Formerly Known as Prince Twitter. And, I have no shame in admitting that I also check Cracked as a palate cleanser.

Whichever news sources you look to for information, don't forget to use your critical thinking skills. If one is not careful, the news can be dangerous propaganda. 

Peace

--Free

Talking About In The Nick of Time (happy endings)

Just when I was thinking what a miracle it was for a woman to be saved from gunshot by her dang hairweave... I was so happy for this guy. He was in a coma and about to have his life support turned off - just before he woke up...

Wowwww.

Nothing else to say about this one really except I spotted it on my Google Reader and then discovered a site called News Monster. An interesting site, this one. Along with the coma rescue story, I noticed one about Hitler connection to the occult (yeah - big surprise there, huh?) and links for other "weird" news. You might want to give the site a look-over.

Where the police wrong? Should this woman be compensated?

There is a local story in the news here about what happened to a woman back in 2004.

This lady was out shopping in a mall with her son. There was a robbery at a bank in the same mall. The police showed up looking for a female suspect of a certain description (a heavyset African-American female in her 30s wearing a dark blue shirt, dark sunglasses, a black headband or bandana, tennis shoes and carrying a dark bag). The police detained the female shopper (45 at the time, was smaller and wearing a white, nylon jogging suit with a light blue shirt underneath. She was carrying a purse and a white Sears bag, and was with a child) - cuffed her, searched her, refused to let her son use her phone to contact his father.

This all happened in view of one of the busiest roads in town. People gawked, there was news footage, and a couple driving by recognized the woman being detained as someone from their church.

Eventually, the police determined that the woman they had detained was not the suspect. They released her. No apology.

The woman later sued. She lost (well, she won a part of her suit and was awarded $1) and now owes court costs and attorneys' fees of over $45,000. The judge thinks the lawsuit was frivolous. The jury was an all white jury.

By the way, here is how the news describes the innocent female shopper: 

• Anchorage businesswoman and mother of two
• She and her family were immersed in a church conference in the days leading up to the incident. 
• She was at the mall shopping for something to wear to a church banquet
  

And her husband was, at the time all this happened, on active military duty (the police found the female's military ID).

The real robber was found later that evening, dressed as she had been described, hanging out in a seedier area of our town.

So, what do you think?

Peace
--Free