Just flicked on the TV. Relentless news coverage and they’ve even dug Witchell out since it involves a trip to the palace.
We’ve obviously had this sought of blanket bombardment of news items at times, which involves dragging out a whole plethora of reporters (including someone from Delhi today, since Sunak is a Hindu).
I have to wonder whether it is a tad unhealthy though. I know that we’re all adults and can flick the TV off or over, but some of us have a tendency to become attached to stories to a point of being partly obsessed ourselves. I’m not really sure that the TV companies are doing us any favours, mental health wise.
I find that true… at one point the only thing in the news was the Ukrainian war. If the Americans have a (nother) mass shooting that’ll be everywhere and every other story like it dragged in for days .
They wring every ounce of rubbish of every story .
It’s a pity they don’t actually report on things that matter and only what they want to influence.
That’s why I like to come on here to escape all the news but then we are bombarded with news of Truss and Sunak on here if I was interested in politics I would have joined a political forum
What makes me chuckle, especially on Sky, is the way sometimes they’ve obviously struggled to get someone important on to ask their opinion.
So they’ve ended up with someone who’s completely obscure or unknown, or a man in the street
We sit there going “who the heck is that?” and “why do we care what they think?”
It was bad when the Queen died and they were so desperate to fill the slots they rolled in anyone who had ever had anything to do with her, however distantly
If the poor Queen had really had all those “special” relationships and conversations, she wouldn’t have had time to walk the corgis!
In my opinion it’s done because it can be done and it’s a kind of vicious circle with everyone passing the buck. There was an interesting discussion on TV the other day where this was elaborated on. Journalists claimed they’d do it because “the people” expected them to, adding if they didn’t break this news, somebody else would and that was unacceptable because they’d lose readership and viewers. They also referred to the ongoing competition among journalists to be the first. If journalists then do so, there’re others who complain about the bombardment. After all, it still is attention economics having to cope with a continuously waning attention span of the addressees.
I’m sure that there are people like me who get a bit obsessed with things at times (on some kind of sporadic OCD scale??), which makes it harder to turn off than Joe average, and which goes through a minor period of mourning/withdrawal symptoms when the event has reached its inexorable climax ( behave yourself @Vlad).
This sort of endless broadcast from dawn to dusk really doesn’t help!!
I stopped watching the news. I used to have the BBC as my homepage when I turned on my computer in the mornings. It sometimes made me angry, and that would set the tone for the day. Sometimes you can spot an agenda, especially on the beeb. And sometimes its what they omit or don’t report that gives you a totally different take on a situation and I feel that I’ve been manoeuvered into a conclusion. I get suspicious when I don’t hear both sides of a story, and it sorta proves that I’m being pushed into a certain direction.
).
