"Journalism"

Yesterday, right before I left for work, I snuck in a brief look at Channel 9’s Today Show. Normally, watching the Today Show leaves my eyes burning, my head pounding and my ears ringing.

And yesterday was no exception.

I caught the arse end of a story relating to pornography being available in Public Libraries. Now, some of you might think it erroneous of me to comment on a story I didn’t get the full gist of, but hey… the Today Show pisses me off.

They were interviewing a spokesperson for the Public Libraries, who cited lack of proper controls over the internet access, and that adult content could be easily viewed by any ol’ Joe/Joe-ette. This sounded like an interesting and insightful interview, but I didn't count on the attendance of the female prat who was conducting the interview.

I can’t quote her word for word, but this is what she said… paraphrasing is minimal here…

“But here at Channel 9, we’re in the information business… and we don’t have any problems with [people looking at pr0n]” the blonde creature squeaked out the television speakers.

What… the… fuck…?

Of course, what I fail to put across in my post here is that absolute smugness in this woman’s delivery of that question. Obviously it was to incite some kind of back-foot response, so that maybe she can get together with her friends down the vodka bar and they can squeal about how she roasted that Public Library chick.

Ah yes, gotta love the method of interviewing that goes for shock reaction rather than actual intelligent probing.

Back on track… Now, I’m no Dr. Anything, but the last time I checked there was a large difference between a television network that is run by the richest man in Australia, and a Government funded public library.

Did you know why they want people to be quiet in a public library? Because - if you listen hard enough - you can hear the sound of squeaking wheels coming from inside their computers. This squeaking is from the hamsters running around to power the things. That’s right… they can’t even afford grease for their hamster wheels.

Also, the last time I checked, the public don't use Channel 9's computers to look at the internet. I think the worst thing to show up on their search lists would be "ethical journalism", "lefties" and "unbiased opinions without sensationalism"... things which Channel 9 seemingly are vehement in their opposition of.

As far as I know, the only thing stopping the public from accessing questionable sites in libraries is the threat of a wrist slapping... not being fired.

But, I’m not Dr. Genre either, but the last time I checked, Channel 9, or even the Today Show wasn’t in the “info-biz” either. I thought they were more of the “Entertainment Business”. But hey, I guess it’s only semantics.

In order to gain some insight into the “information” that the Today Show offered, I decided to peruse their archives.

And who could do without such valuable information as the following?

Fat Wives Have Their Husbands to Blame

Today show's wedding of the year!

James Bond gadgets

Thank whatever Gods are out there that we are privileged to view such “information”. Thank the other Gods that we have blonde women with long legs and fake tans delivering our “information” to us in such an unintelligible manner.

Hell, if this woman is “informative” enough to make it onto television, then maybe there’s hope for some people out there with “talent”.