Hacker Boy (hackng into this truly disgraceful log, and still giving the llie to Skip's disgraceful charge that I am Piers Morgan, or some other employee/former emlployee of Rupert Murdoch who learned hacking in that capacity): "Skip. You keep talking about the mainstream media getting worse, when it is your blog that keeps getting worse--at the very least so sarcastic as to reuqire extensive mental treatment. You know perfectly well that the UN did NOT call for MORE viiolence in Syria."
Skip: What? How could I be wrong about this one. I admit that my anonymous sources seemed to say taht the UN head had called for an end to violence in Syrial, and this headline appeared as a "top story" on Yahoo "News" (which is NEVER right). "UN mission head in Syria calls for end to violence"
But what is the PRIME maxim of "journalism"--repeated over and over again to explain whey "dood news" is never featured, but merely--say--ANTI-AMERICAN "news? Come on. YOu know this one. "Dog bites man" is NOT supposed to be "news". Taht happens all of the time. But "Man bites dog" IS "news", because that is somewhat rare.
Surely, only an INCOMPETENT would ANNOY me with the ridicuous headline/story that the head of the UN mission in Syria has "called" for an "end to the viiolence".
Sarcasm aside, I want to be as blunt as possilbe: NO, this should NOT have been distributed as "news"--at least headline, "top story" "news". In other words, you MIGHT make a passing mentino that the UN head called for that, as part of an actual NEWS story, But it is NOT a "news" story that the UN head called for an "end to viiolence". So what, you say. Well, it continues to bother me thhat our modern "journalists" are that STUPID. Nope. It does NOT do any good to put this non-news pablum out there. It is SAPPY stuff--LAZY stuff to cover the DISINTEREST in real FACTS (that matteer), and real "news".
That is why I made that "misstake" with the headline. How could sane people actually think it is "news" that the UN mission head in Syria actaully said that he wanted an end to violence. What is he THERE for?
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Doesn't the media routinely quote PRESIDENT OBAMA, and did the media not quote previous American Presidents, saing banal, obvoius things? Of course, and a tually too much. Often, those "storeis" are absurd, as far as being "news". It ie esppecially overdone with Obama. However, that is our PRESIDENT. The media might feel "obligated" to publicize almost anything that the President says. Sorry. I know Obama wants us all to be "citizneens of the world", but it is ABSURD to do a "news" hadline saying that a PECE mission head has called for an end to violence. If you are a "journalists" (as these people are NOT), yu just have to do better than that. You can justly accuse me of having another relapse of my sarcasm disease, but sarcasmridicule is the ony possible response to this idiocy.