May 20, 2005
-
Okay, that's just tacky.
It has become more and more difficult to take the Mainstream News Media
seriously. For one thing, it'd sure be pleasant to be able to get
through a whole month without "finger" playing a prominent part in the
news. I do NOT wanna hear about it.Second . . . Saddam Hussein in his undies?
The man's a murderous creepazoid, but c'mon . . . he still bears the
image of God due to his being human. Hard to believe and accept,
I realize, but there it is. We cheapen ourselves when photos
intended solely to demean are published, not to mention arousing the
wrath of the target's supporters.Did the position of 'editor' fall by the wayside at some point?
If there's anyone with a firm hand on the tiller, it's hard to tell.
Comments (4)
Well, I don't disagree with anything you said, I'll just point out that the publication that ran those photos (initially) was hardly MSM. They're a cheap British tabloid that has a daily feature displaying the starlet, or alternatively unknown lady in an embarrassing question, who somehow or other had difficulty keeping the upper part of her garment on in public.
IOW, the tackiness of this act was not an indicator of any larger issue of general tackiness, since they've been accomplished purveyors of the tacky all along.
Not that I disagree that tackiness is on the rise, mind you. OH, for the day when the things that Michael Jackson is accused of would have been handled quietly in county courtrooms, being unfit subjects for public reportage, or better yet (and I'm not kidding) by angry fathers with horsewhips.
Oops, that should have been :in an embarrassing situation" above.
What's contributed mightily to the rapid downward turn of what's deemed as news "fit for print" is the peculiar view which says so long as someone else - anyone else! - prints a story or photo first, it's fair game.
Saddam in his skivvies should have been left to languish in that British rag, rather than being picked up by CNN, etc.
Agreed.
Comments are closed.