News Negation

The journalism instrumentality appears to have become Orwellian. That is, they ar broadcasting/publishing not-news.

Case in point: Large airplane disappears – News; Large airplane found – News; anything in between is not-news. AT best it is mind kibble to divert the bogs from what attention should be given to like World War III (number uncertain.)

The news media has become maskarovka and diversion.

Local News

Yuck. A mediocre night. Had to drip. Only up twice to check faucets and did manage to get to the gym this morning but the minimum temperature foretold by the weather beavers was considerably off. This winter has definitely damaged or destroyed what trust we had in the local weather beavers. Their temperature-time accuracy was worse than the NWS foretelling, which raises questions of why we sh0ould even bother with them at all?

And from that, why bother with the local news broadcast either? Most of the news is irrelevant and ridiculous, sob sister kitsch, or tardy spectator sports reporting that is a good time for a bowel movement or anything at all. In fact, a root canal might be preferable. So absent trustworthy weather prediction, what value local programming? Is this a sign that television stations are going the way of newspapers?

I have to admit to subscribing to the Arab Tribune, a biweekly, but not to the Huntsville Times. I gave up on the latter when it couldn’t find delivery people who were 0.5 accurate. Now they print fewer days per week than I used to actually get delivered. And considerably less news. So no loss.

Not that there is much news in the Arab tribune. Mostly advertisements and gossip. But the local governments – city and county- are internet blind and the only way to receive tyrannical announcements is via the newspaper. Not that I plan on continuing my subscription once the Tribune ceases paper publishing. For one thing, the internet is still not a legal announcement vector for government. And second, I don’t like reading news on line. At least not in newspaper format which is about all the publishers have imagination for. So I suspect in a few years local news will entirely disappear except for social networking sites and those are so transient and temperament/age dependent I see no way for adequate coverage. So the information age is fast going away. Too many pipes and not enough poo.

Write that on Amerika’s headstone.

Moldy Question

If something OLD is told as NEWS, is that a Lie?

Put another way, what is the half-life (or first telling life) of NEWS? My contention is that the half life is two tellings. Anything after that is incompetence and laxity on the part of the mediaists.

And they should get paid on that basis. The more retold, the littler the pay.

Push to Press

AS I was reviewing blots this morning, on the Huffington Post in particular, I came to an epiphany that is a message to the journalists and mediaists: Can the videos. I want text summaries, not overblown time wasting. To paraphrase Joe Friday, “Just the information, not the stercus tauri.”

, , , ,

Sterile Delivery

Lovely day yesterday – much downfall of dihydrogen oxide droplets – with more of the same and decreased temperatures foretold by the weather beavers for today. Under these conditions it seems meet that some weighty topic needs be dealt with in a frivolous manner.

I noted [Link] this week a PEW poll on the so-called ‘tablet revolution’, a term that smacks of contemporary history denial and branding egoism. The tablet is not much more than a (small) step in the on-going electronics revolution that began with the development of quantum mechanics and was instantiated by Marconi. Of course this consideration quickly reduces modern bogs to somnolent boredom and they do not spend money when they are asleep, perhaps the only time they don’t unless they are unemployed and out looking for a donation. The shape of modern society is the pseudo-poor who have funds to survive but not to enjoy (?) the lifestyle they covet. Self-control and will power are as alien to modern bogs, and many geeks and nerds, as polio.

Thus, in a modern world where budgeting and investment are the slaves of "oooh! shiny!" losing the (admittedly brief and shallow) attention span of the Amerikan plebe is directly loss of revenue. And thus any attempt to communicate, however misguided and ill posed, must be titillating and inaccurate.

Departing that for the moment, I was taken by a statement in the PEW blurb,

"Eleven percent of adults now own a tablet computer. About half get news on it everyday, and three in ten spend more time consuming news than they did before. But contrary to what some in the news industry hoped, a majority say they are not willing to pay for news content on the devices, according to the most detailed study to date of tablet users and their news consumption habits."

What is gathering is not the 0.11 of the population who own a tablet, a statement mostly of the effectiveness of Apple’s mind subjugation with its overpriced but flashy/shiny toys, but the statement that a majority will not pay for news.

The ambiguity of the statement, indicative of either poor composition skills or the modern Barnumism, if not both, needs be dealt first. It is unclear whether the majority refers to the 0.11 who possess a tablet of the approximately 0.055 who obtains ‘news’ on it. As we have learned in freshman physics, those factors of two are pesky but sometimes critical. Especially, in that context, for gravity. [1]

Regardless, in terms of a comparison with the television advertising market, either figure is in the order-of-magnitude range, and the comparison would seem potentially apt given that the tablet is mostly used for entertainment rather than constructive work. Conspicuously, the majority of modern Amerikans pay for cable but unless they ante up for premium channels offering athletic violence or simulated gratuitous reproductive activity, that payment is not generally associated with any particular content. Hence, ‘news’ programming on television is not generally regarded as something one pays for. Certainly the majority, who have either grown up with cable, and whose absence is a large fraction of the constitution of pseudo-poverty, or actual broadcast television, consider both local and network news programs as quid pro quo freebies offering information in exchange for carry-over attention span for commercials.

The point is that while Amerikans may have been willing to perceive and pay for printed news, they are generally unwilling to pay for audio-visual news. And the fraction who are willing to pay for printed news is decreasing daily. Indeed, as commented previously, the means for newspapers to continue to survive is by offering news not provided by local and network news programming, notably local gossip and trivia. So the intriguing aspect of the PEW statement is the hint of amazement that humans will not spend money on news content but will spend it on games and other apps or services. But not for news – news on television is sans price, and apparently, also on the tablet.

[1] OK, it is Friday, and while that’s not a pun it is a groaner.