repulsive

[fpb]

Over a hundred people are killed by storms in the southern USA. (And my most heartfelt sympathy for my American friends, as well as hopes that none of you was personally affected.)

There is war in Libya and violence in Syria, and revolution and repression across the Arab world.

There are local elections across Britain, including the very sensitive area of North Ireland.

Several police-related scandals are on the boil. Not one, several.

Lionel Messi has scored one of the most beautiful goals in the history of soccer, and made his team European champions in a highly charged inter-Spanish duel in the process.

Just a few of the important news around today.

And the BBC dedicates FIFTEEN MINUTES to the PRELIMINARIES of tomorrow's wedding. Not to the wedding, to the PRELIMINARIES. Most of it apparently dedicated to crazy Americans sleeping rough in Westminster - which, in the circumstances, seems heartless as well as disgusting.

Comments

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

Repulsive. Yes.

Concentrating on the ornamental at the expense of the substantial. It's saddening and maddening.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

It's not just that. After all, the man is Britain's future king. It is the mental laziness that says that because a story seems important, it must be given immense amounts of scarce news time, even if the Second Coming is being reported from somewhere up the road. Sometimes, even if a story is important, it does not need a lot of time to tell. Five or six minutes would have been more than enough.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

As one of tomorrow's countless Royal commenters, I'll say that people, including people recently hit by a hurricane, are gladdened by such things.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And there I thought I was a "people".

But seriously -

[fpb.livejournal.com]

- I don't object to attention being paid to the country's future King and his future Queen. I object furiously to giving over half of a half-hour news program to that and that alone, even where it is agonizingly clear that the journalists are just filling time and repeating themselves over and over again. Five minutes are enough. This is bad journalism, period; it is sickening mental sloth. In this case, it is certainly making my inner Republican stir; but whether or not I objected to the subject, I would still object, as I object and have objected in the past, to the grotesque waste of time spent in trying to find something else to say about a story that can be covered in five minutes, while others clamour uselessly for attention.

Re: But seriously -

[elegant-bonfire.livejournal.com]

Dan Rather agrees with you, to some extent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/and-in-other-news_b_855034.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl10%7Csec3_lnk1%7C59218

[arhyalon.livejournal.com]

This is not related, but...I didn't know since you'd mentioned the pieces on Greg Mortenson, if you might be interested in the rebuttle put out by his organization.

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_4d3125cc-67d7-11e0-b861-001cc4c002e0.html

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/article_4837c724-68b3-11e0-8add-001cc4c03286.html

Your Comments Are Concise And True, This Might Be Perfect...

[saturndevouring.livejournal.com]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-28-2011/royal-wedding-excitement-in-london

I must admit, as one of my lifelong friend's mother had her home damaged by the storms, I find the American attention to this event mind-boggling.