When something like the Michael Jackson saga is running non-stop for days, overwhelming everything in its path, does anyone else swear at the television set over the near-complete blackout on serious news?
Think about it: CNN, MSNBC and Fox have their moments, but mostly they follow -- tediously -- the hot pop, disaster and crime of the day. The major network newscasts, meanwhile, are only on air an hour or so a day, and they're following the cable news trend toward triviality.
The president is in Russia? China is erupting? Who cares -- give it 30 seconds in some non-prime time segment at the bottom of a news cycle. Even then, "coverage" will consist of whatever pop-glam-salacious moment can be gleaned from the story, the one item some doofus in management thinks is needed to jazz up the story.
The G-8 summit? How's the latest Berlusconi scandal going? How about those idiot fringe protesters camped in the streets? They're meaningless but great video. All this with the added attraction of announcers speaking at a third grade level, interspersed with drug commercials every few minutes, and the experience becomes an inspiration for madness.
Why is it there is no serious news network in this country? An adult news network. With hundreds of drivelous channels out there, why not just one?
It seems it would be a smash hit with educated, upscale viewers -- hint to advertisers: the ones who buy stuff. People who might actually enjoy complete
There is so much more happening every day around the world, and the BBC is virtually the only broadcast entity covering it as it should be covered.
If this has to be a public effort, why not slap a tax on televisions, or maybe a monthly fee on cable and satellite TV bills? We need this badly. Anyone who has watched the BBC -- or the CBC -- knows what crap we get in 90 percent of the news programming in this country. And how many American brains must be withering to walnut size because of it.
Font Resize
| 