![]() |
|
![]()
January 26, 2006
Weathering the news
Increasingly, there seem to be two different "news worlds" for lack of a better term. There's online news, and "regular" news. Right there I'm realizing that I'm running out of terms, and resorting to improvising on-the-spot euphemisms of my own. What, in the name of God, is "regular" news? The stuff that manages to find its way past whatever editorial board runs the New York Times, the news that makes it onto major network television, or the news that makes it into the hard copy of my daily, the Philadelphia Inquirer? I don't know what regular news is. For that matter, I don't know what "real" news is. If it doesn't get widely reported, is it news? If it gets reported, but barely, then is its relative importance to be determined by that? I'll illustrate with a few recent examples. While I would have thought a major change in government in the country to the immediate north of the United States would have been considered of the utmost importance, the news of the Canadian election results was buried in the interior pages of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Yet today's Inquirer deems Palestinian Authority exit polls (not even tangible election results) worthy of today's front page. Why? The huge story of Google censorship is buried in the last paragraph of another article with a different headline on page eight -- this despite the fact that a congressman from New Jersey (that's the area of the Inquirer's distribution) is holding hearings on the matter. The Google story is of course huge news on the Internet and everywhere in the blogosphere. But perhaps I'm overreacting. Perhaps what's big news on the Internet is not news in Philadelphia. Then there's another story I've touched on before which is huge news on talk radio, and which would be newsworthy if it happened in any other country, and that is the regular cross border incursions (I won't yet call this an invasion) of Mexican troops into the United States. Just yesterday, another incursion was reported: Chief Deputy Mike Doyal of the Hudspeth County Sheriff's Department said that Mexican army personnel had several mounted machine guns on the ground more than 200 yards inside the U.S. border, the Daily Bulletin newspaper reported earlier. Whether it should be called an invasion or not, I think this is major news, and the fact that it isn't being reported makes me wonder whether there isn't a serious attempt to relegate any serious discussion of it to paranoid conspiracy status. (Something often triggered precisely because of non-reporting!) This all begs the question of what is news. Don't ask me. It's freezing cold outside, and I was earlier told it was a "nice day." Relative to Russia, I suppose it is. Weather is a relative thing -- something that I, a weather absolutist who believes weather is either good or evil, must admit. If the truth were told, news would probably be as relative as the weather. (I said "if" the truth were told....) posted by Eric on 01.26.06 at 07:06 AM
Comments
It is being reported, but in an awfully funny way.
We're so eager not to cause a problem with Mexico, that we won't even say "Mexican military." We say, "Men in Mexican military-style uniforms." This, even though the Department of Homeland Security says that they WERE Mexican military. Bonnie · January 26, 2006 3:32 PM Well, they are either Mexican military or they are not. If, as the Mexican government maintains, they are not, then they are simply very dangerous armed criminals -- who should be met with force. Eric Scheie · January 26, 2006 3:43 PM Thanks for the link, Bird Dog! Eric Scheie · January 26, 2006 3:44 PM Ooops.. that Department of Homeland Security link should really be linking here. Bonnie · January 28, 2006 10:38 AM |
|
April 2011
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2011
March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 Sarah Hoyt Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A knee sock jihad might be premature at this time
People Are Not Rational No Biorobots For Japan The Thorium Solution Radiation Detector From A Digital Camera Voter Fraud? This war of attrition is driving me bananas! Attacking Christianity is one thing, but must they butcher geometry? Are there trashy distinctions in freedom of expression? Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Good piece. Classic Eric. We just linked it, above a piece on the NYT.