"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
08/24/2014 at 11:59 • Filed to: None
1
1|
"No, I don't thank you for the fish at all" (notindetroit)
08/24/2014 at 11:59 • Filed to: None | 1
| 1 |
I was going to form this into a more detailed essay, but I'm left with not much but an open question: what purpose does, say, the news about !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! serve other than to create widespread panic and sensationalism? And no, Gawker Media isn't so much guilty of this as much as merely regurgitating, along with every other news outlet, what the State Department is feeding them in the first place.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
I'm under the impression that the Israelis have tight control over their media outlets over distressful news items like these - for them, it's such a common occurrence anyway that to saturate the news with it doesn't serve much purpose other than create panic, and to simply leave it off ends up accomplishing more strategic and public good. On the other hand, freedom of the media is one of our most cherished freedoms - so I guess it's a question of how our media would be convinced that perhaps a focus away from the Middle East might be good for a while.
The Transporter
> No, I don't thank you for the fish at all
08/24/2014 at 12:12 |
|
As long as 24 hour news channels and tabloidesque web sites like Gawker continue to exist, you will continue to see overhyped coverage of sensational news items like this. If they weren't constantly sensationalizing news stories like this, then they would literally run out of things to report on.