Anna Nicole Smith Isn't Getting Impeached, Is She?
Wolfram Donat
First of all, let me just say that I am ecstatic that no matter what time of day or night it is, I can turn on any station on any television and receive breaking news in the Anna Nicole Smith case. The last update I received was that Anna Nicole Smith is, indeed, still deceased, and the running total of possible fathers of her daughter is, at last count, thirty-three, unless you count Roseanne, but that’s opening up another whole can of worms best left under the bed. Or wherever you happen to keep your worms.
What bothers me about this is that, once again, news that might be important (in other words, relevant to 99.99999% of the world’s population) is put on the back burner in favor of constant coverage of a bleach-blonde celebrity with – forgive me – the I.Q. of a brick. Yes, she had a hard childhood. Yes, she was famous. Yes, she died suddenly and tragically.
But you know what? There are people dying suddenly and tragically all over the world, every day. Many of them don’t have current wills, either, and many probably have children of questionable parentage. I don’t hear about them.
There are other stories out there that need to be covered, and they’re not receiving the attention that they need because all of the networks – even the ‘respectable’ news channels – are too concerned with ratings and showing what the American public wants to see, which in this case is the vapid ramblings of a vapid ex-stripper and her estranged mother and her might-be-a-murderer ‘partner.’ Not a ‘boyfriend,’ mind you, or a fiancée or even a POSSLQ, but a ‘partner.’ We must keep our terminology straight, mustn’t we?
Meanwhile, stories like the discovery of a note in Cheney’s handwriting relating directly to the Scooter Libby trial and the possible impeachment of King Bush II fall by the wayside. That story has gotten more coverage from papers in Hong Kong than it’s gotten from CNN. I know it won’t be covered by FOX, since it casts a shadow on their golden boy, but I expected more from CNN.
I guess I should have learned from the whole JonBenet Ramsey fiasco, but I didn’t. I think I’ll get my news from The Economist from now on. Maybe they’ll even have my local weather.
What bothers me about this is that, once again, news that might be important (in other words, relevant to 99.99999% of the world’s population) is put on the back burner in favor of constant coverage of a bleach-blonde celebrity with – forgive me – the I.Q. of a brick. Yes, she had a hard childhood. Yes, she was famous. Yes, she died suddenly and tragically.
But you know what? There are people dying suddenly and tragically all over the world, every day. Many of them don’t have current wills, either, and many probably have children of questionable parentage. I don’t hear about them.
There are other stories out there that need to be covered, and they’re not receiving the attention that they need because all of the networks – even the ‘respectable’ news channels – are too concerned with ratings and showing what the American public wants to see, which in this case is the vapid ramblings of a vapid ex-stripper and her estranged mother and her might-be-a-murderer ‘partner.’ Not a ‘boyfriend,’ mind you, or a fiancée or even a POSSLQ, but a ‘partner.’ We must keep our terminology straight, mustn’t we?
Meanwhile, stories like the discovery of a note in Cheney’s handwriting relating directly to the Scooter Libby trial and the possible impeachment of King Bush II fall by the wayside. That story has gotten more coverage from papers in Hong Kong than it’s gotten from CNN. I know it won’t be covered by FOX, since it casts a shadow on their golden boy, but I expected more from CNN.
I guess I should have learned from the whole JonBenet Ramsey fiasco, but I didn’t. I think I’ll get my news from The Economist from now on. Maybe they’ll even have my local weather.
Print
Email
