News to Whom?

This evening, I watched the NBC Nightly News, just to make sure that I hadn't missed anything important. I won't make that mistake again. Lester Holt reported on "campaign surrogates," the hangers-on in McCain and Obama's official entourages. The jist of the report was that sometimes, these "spokespeople" say things that run counter to, or are just plain embarrassing for, the official candidate. Then, as the reporters swarm over the fresh meat of fabricated scandal, the candidate has to dance around behind a hastily constructed podium and deny the surrogate's statement while trying not to say, "What does any of this bullshit have to do with my plans for the economy?"

At the end of the report, Holt asked the obligatory news reporter about the significance of this week's gaffes. Standing in the rain in Washington DC, the reporter said something to the effect of, "Well, Lester, there's good news and bad news for the candidates. The good news is that American voters aren't listening to, and don't really care about what these surrogates say. The bad news is that their statements can stay in the news cycle for weeks."

Huh? Apparently, I've completely misunderstood the purpose of the news. I thought reporters were supposed to tell me about the issues that I care about, the issues that help me to be an informed citizen, the issues that matter to me when I make decisions in the voting booth. Seems I was totally wrong.

Because I watch the news, I know that reporters/pundits/the anointed jackasses du jour spend quite a bit of time talking about things I don't care about (what Jessie Jackson thinks of Barack Obama, for example). This whole time, I thought that the news reporters spent so much time on these stories because they mistakenly thought that I did care. I thought that they believed that they were acting in my best interest. I didn't realize that they KNOW that I don't care about these things, and still insist on blabbering on and on and on about them.

I feel so misled. I also feel certain that the NBC reporter is getting a stern talking to because he let the big cat out of the bag. Basically, he completely negated the need for news networks.

NBC Nightly Snooze

Tonight, as I made pot roast for dinner, I half listened to the NBC Nightly News. The broadcast started with a report about American Airlines and their planes that aren't up to code. I thought, "Well, at least I'm flying Delta through the summer." Brian Williams ended the report with, "Delta claims their planes are up to code." Smug little bastard, planting seeds of doubt about something over which I have no control. (OK, I know that I have very little control over anything, but I really don't have any control over ties on fuel lines on airplanes. Personally, I find it terribly troubling to learn that airplanes are held together with the same ties that I use to close my trash bags.)

There was a report from San Francisco: Reporter standing in crowd, reporting that there was no Olympic Torch. San Fran officials saw London, they saw France, and they crapped in their underpants. So, instead of letting the torch relay wind up and down the famous San Fran hills, they cut the route short and took the torch to an undisclosed location - where I assume Dick Cheney is standing watch.

Later in the broadcast, the "Science Editor" reported on some problem with bottled water. Something about a chemical that's not supposed to be in our bodies, but is - because of bottled water. But wait, don't get too upset because they're not sure. At the end of the report, Brian asked the Science Guy, "What should people do?" The Science Guy, who I'm assuming has a degree in journalism as well as medicine, said, "Well, since there's not really enough information, we can't really advise anyone to do anything." Thanks. Why are you on TV talking about it, whatever it is? Which genius decided that this was newsworthy?

I thought the same thing as I watched their In Depth report focused on Wal-Mart executives behaving badly. "In Depth" meaning, "We're going to spend 30 more seconds of air time on this story." Seems Wal-Mart had a verbal agreement with this production company to film their meetings, because really, who doesn't want to relive a business meeting over and over and over again?

Wal-Mart management then decided to uninvite these people to their meetings. So, now, the embittered production company is selling the videos to the highest bidder - a small group that includes CNBC. I'd like to think that CNBC didn't know what they were buying, that somehow these jilted production people oversold the product. Because surely, with all of their money, CNBC didn't knowlingly buy a video of Wal-Mart executives in drag, doing some stupid skit at some stupid Annual Meeting. Surely, CNBC thought they were getting something that would bring down the corporate giant - some irrefutable evidence that they are the source of all evil in the known universe. Something like Wal-Mart executives worshipping Satan around a pentagram.

Instead, it's just middle-aged guys in drag, flouncing about in an ill-conceived strategy to build morale. I guess they thought that if their non-unionized, underpaid workers saw upper management acting silly in Wal-Mart dresses, the workers would stop crying for health insurance. We'll never know. The jist of the news report was: Production company people are mad. Production company people are selling this video. CNBC was dumb enough to buy it.

I'm still not sure why it was news. Surely, somewhere, something more important happened today.

Fox News Flash

Today, I went to the gym. Again, I had my headphones in, but was forced to watch the bank of TVs in front of the phalanx of treadmills. I had a choice: I could watch barely-clad women shaking everything they had within an inch of their lives in what passes for music videos these days (oh, how I yearn for the days of yesteryear when people actually wore clothes in music videos) or I could watch Fox News. It wasn't really a choice at all.

My headphones spared me the audio assault from these two sources. However, with the Fox TV on "mute," I had to see the close-captioning. I couldn't read it because I don't wear my glasses at the gym, but I still had to see it. So, I could follow along, despite my overwhelming desire not to.

Here's what passed for news this afternoon:

Former Senator Bob Kerry did not insult Barack Obama. Seems he made some comments that "someone" (Fox News) might have taken the wrong way (and reported as fact), so Kerry wrote a letter to Obama, apologizing for the non-insult. This non-news warranted a panel discussion on Fox News. Again, no glasses and no audio meant I couldn't follow what in the world these people found to debate, but it seemed to get pretty heated. I imagined that they were debating whether Kerry intended the insult, whether Hilary Clinton was somehow behind all of this (because we all know that she's the source of all evil, according to Fox News), and whether Obama should accept Kerry's apology. I would imagine that not once did any of these people consider that maybe, just maybe, they were wasting everyone's time.

Next news flash: Mike Huckabee will not condemn Britney's Spears's 16 year-old pregnant sister. I'm not kidding, this "news" warranted a "This Just In" flag on Fox News. Seems someone (Fox News) thought we'd all give a rat's ass about Mike Huckabee's opinion on this subject. I have to say that I'm terribly disappointed to learn that Mike Huckabee even knew who Jamie-Lynn Spears is. Hell, I'm disappointed that I know who she is. Seems Huckabee thinks Spears the Younger made the right decision to keep her unborn baby and he won't condemn her. Very big of you, Mike. I'm sure she'll sleep better knowing that.

Let's all just take a step back for a minute and remember that despite what Big Sis does or does not wear when she's in public, Jamie-Lynn Spears is 16 years old. She is one of too many teenage girls who get pregnant every year in this country. Her condemnation is not a campaign issue. The campaign issue is: What does Mike Huckabee propose to do to help pregnant teenage girls who don't have famous big sisters with truckloads of cash? What does he plan to do to help families whose implosions aren't captured by the paparazzi? What realistic plan does he propose to prevent teenage pregnancy? If candidates can't address the real issues, and if the media can't ask the real questions, clearly we just need to stop all political campaigning because clearly it's an enormous waste of time and money.

And finally, in yet another "not" news story: MLB baseball pitcher, Roger Clemens says he did not, and has never, used steroids. Ever the diligent media machine, Fox News didn't take him at his word. No, no, no. Instead, they posted 2 pictures of Clemens, one where his face looked slightly puffier than in the other. I guess I was supposed to conclude that Mr. Clemens is a big fat-faced liar. Here's the thing - Whether he did or didn't, how's he supposed to prove that he didn't take steroids years ago?

So, to Fox, I say, "News? Not!"

Fleeing Celebrities!

I hate CNN. I think the entire network is made up of mongers: fear, gossip, anything but the truth. Anderson Cooper, "The Silver Surfer of Cable News," is their only saving grace. When I go to the gym in the middle of the afternoon, I inevitably turn the TV to the Crap News Network just to have something to look at. I listen to my iPod while pictures flash in front of my eyes. Today, the California fires monopolized coverage. Finally, CNN could turn their glaring, prying spotlight away from Britney Spears and report on something that actually is real news. Wildfires raging across acres and acres of beautiful mountains, racing to the sea like the 49ers of old. "California Burning" CNN uncreatively dubbed their coverage.

As in any disaster, there are many angles to the story. There's the government angle, so today we saw Arnold and GW, both patting each other on the back and stating the obvious. According to the CNN headline, Bush said, "It's a sad situation." Now that's leadership, folks. I don't care what you say.

Then, there's the human interest angle, so reporters and their trusty sidekick camera operators follow the hapless as they return to the burned shells that used to be their mountain homes. On ABC News, Charlie Gibson even helped a woman pack up her valuables so she could take them with her, while the cameraman filmed the entire time. Way to pitch in, Charlie. Way to be a cold-hearted bastard, cameraman.

CNN took it one step further and had a reporter cover his own evacuation. No, I'm not speaking "bathroom-wise." This fellow had to leave his home. According to the headline, he didn't lose his home, but some of his friends did. I suppose he'll be interviewing them next. "So, how does it feel to lose your home? You know I didn't lose mine, right?" I have to say that if I was this jackass's wife, I'd have some pointed comments about his bid for a Pulitzer by plastering the airwaves with our family trauma.

But - today, CNN found the angle we've all been waiting for: the celebrity angle. According to the crawl, "Celebrities are among the many fleeing the California fires." But, wait, that's not the end of the story. No, "for more details, go to cnn.com/entertainment." When the end of the crawl crawled across the screen, I laughed out loud. Apparently, watching "average" folks flee a fire is heartbreaking, but when it's a celebrity, it's entertainment. I immediately got a mental image of a bunch of celebrities racing down a hillside while Ryan Seacrest chases after them, demanding to know who designed their "fire fleeing" attire.

Mark my words: If the fire gets anywhere near Britney Spears's house, these reporters will have the perfect storm.