Fictional Newsweek

What is wrong with people? I know that's a question that this blog asks more than it answers, but I still want to know. This time, the questionable action in question involves the surprisingly still published Newsweek. And the cover story that they went with in this week of news? Are you ready? If Princess Diana were still alive, she would be turning fifty on Friday. What would she be like? Behold!

Are you freaking kidding me?! First of all, they have her strolling along on the cover next to her daughter-in-law who she never met (and who was something like 11 when Diana smashed into that wall). I don't know why that's a little weird to me, but it is. Fortunately, her headwear apparently withstands the test of time. Silly things on top of your head continue being silly.


But the article (or fable, whatever) goes on to imagine how Princess Diana would be today. The story is written by a one Tina Brown and she apparently envisions a Princess Diana who tweets the Dalai Lama and who has "...a deliriously designed Facebook page" complete with "...another age projection of Diana clutching an iPhone." Of course. An iPhone. God Forbid if the not-dead Princess Diana were to have learned the wonders of the Android operating system or the smartphone awesomeness that is the HTC EVO 4G. (Um, yeah, I might have one. Why?) It continues to speculate without any basis (or point) that "Imaginary Diana has a lofty apartment in New York, a strange but comforting friendship with ex-husband Charles, Prince of Wales, and naturally a front-row next to Victoria Beckham at Fashion Week." Of course. Or not. (Really? She didn't think that she'd still be hanging out with some rich Egyptian dude in Paris? She's just going to plop her down in New York for some reason? Oh, that's right. This is pure fiction with no basis in fact at all, so I guess that the author could have had Diana as some sort of circus performer or Wall Street banker because it doesn't matter!)

How does something like this fit into a magazine called "Newsweek"? It's not news. It is rather, however. Unfortunately, that's not the kind of week that we're talking about here. I didn't know that it was OK for a major publication to run a cover story that is completely made-up and has absolutely no purpose what so ever. Does anyone really care all that much anymore? Yes, yes, it's sad that she met an early, untimely and likely horrific death. But what purpose does imagining what her life would have been like for a news magazine? None. No purpose! However, if they had shown her without that ridiculous hat, perhaps I might have been more on board.

Sphere: Related Content

Schmear Tactics

Oh, the misrepresented story masquerading as news is back again. This time, it's in the form of a crazy woman (who sounds like a completely pain in the ass) at Starbucks. Well, she was at Starbucks. That is, until she started screaming like a banshee because she wouldn't "order correctly". Whatever.

According to the pithy folks over there at the NY Post, a one self-proclaimed stickler for correct English, Lynne Rosenthal, went to a Manhattan Starbucks the other day and ordered herself a plain, toasted, multigrain bagel. She kind of flipped out a little bit when the employee (called a 'barista' by Starbucks because they have invented their own language over there) asked her a question. I'm sure you're wondering what sort of question could be so offensive that it would cause someone to flip their lid. You'd better be sitting down. That's right. Are you sitting? OK, good. Because I'd hate to have you standing up when you learn that the barista asked her, "Do you want butter or cheese?" Wait. What?

Look, I understand her annoyance with this sort of thing. If you say you want something plain, you want something plain. I get that. (I actually had an experience once of ordering a 'plain cheeseburger' at a fast food drive thru. I received a piece of meat between the bun. NO cheese. When I mentioned that they forgot my cheese, they said that I ordered it that way because I said 'plain'. I tried to point out that it was a cheeseburger, but I was greeted with that doe in the headlights look that seems to afflict most fast food workers.) If she wanted butter or cheese, I'm sure she would have said that she wanted butter or cheese. But she said plain. Plain, as the word itself indicates, means just that. Plain. Alone. Without anything else. But at Starbucks, that sort of logic is kind of lost. That's why they asked her if she wanted butter or cheese.

Her explanation for her dislike of this question went something like this: " I just wanted a multigrain bagel...I refused to say 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King, you don't have to list the six things you don't want. Linguistically, it's stupid, and I'm a stickler for correct English." Translation: I felt like being a pain in the ass that day.

And that's not the only day that she felt like being a pain in the ass. She admitted that she doesn't use vernacular such as"tall" or a "venti". "Instead, she insists on making a pest of herself by ordering a "small" or "large" cup of joe." OK, so she's on a completely pointless, one-woman mission. How's that working out for you over there, cupcake?

But what annoyed me about this whole story was how it was presented. The folks over at something called DNAinfo went with the headline "English Prof Claims Starbucks Booted Her For Ordering 'Incorrectly'." Yeah, that's not what happened at all. After she refused to answer that she did not want butter OR cheese on her PLAIN multigrain bagel (duh), the moronic barista couldn't get it through her head that PLAIN meant no, she did not want butter and/or cheese. Therefore, the barista wouldn't/couldn't fill her order. That's when Ms. Rosenthal began yelling. That's right. Yelling. Yelling, "I want my multigrain bagel!"

It may or may not surprise you that right about then is when the manager called the cops. One of the employees added a little bit more to the equation when she said that the woman refused to answer AND "She called [the barista] an a- -hole." Oh, there it is. Nice.

But of course, Ms. Rosenthal complained that "It was very humiliating to be thrown out, and all I did was ask for a bagel." You twit. All you did was NOT ask for a bagel. What you did was make an ass out of yourself by yelling like a Neanderthal and calling people a-holes. That's not just asking for a bagel.

The NY Post reports that Ms. Rosenthal claims to have a Ph.D. from Columbia and is an English professor. Of course, we're just supposed to take this crazy woman's word for that, as there was no follow-up by any media agency "reporting" on this incident. You can tell the media anything and it's highly unlikely that they're going to try to find out if it's true. All they want to know about is what kind of a freaking bagel she ordered. They managed to get that in the story several times. Whatever.

I have several problems with this woman. One, if she hates Starbucks and the way that they do things so freaking much, why does she continue to go there? Because she's one of those people who likes to be a pain in the ass under the guise of "making a point". And two, she's in freaking New York and she goes to Starbucks for a bagel?! Is she insane?! Of all of the authentic places in New York that you can get a bagel, she chooses Starbucks? Obviously, I was right. She's cuckoo.

Sphere: Related Content

A Hot Dog Isn't News

I know I'm missing something here with this one. If anyone can help me figure it out, I'd be extremely grateful. The only thing is however, if the explanation for this which has me perplexed is simply that people are morons and will make a big deal over nothing just because they a) can, or b) want to, then I don't want to know that. I already fear that, I don't need to have it reaffirmed.

The Oakland Raiders of the NFL is a pathetic football organization. They are absolutely horrible. It is a team that is lacking in hap. That's right. They are hapless, if you will. And in Sunday's game against the New York Jets, the demonstrated once again just how lacking in hap they are. With their quarterback Jam-Orca Russell at the helm, they managed to finish the game with zero points. The Jets on the other hand, managed to finish the game with 38 points. Thus, the Jets won.

The Jets were up 24 to nothing at the half. Halfway through the fourth quarter is when the Jets scored their 38th point. All the way through the fourth quarter is when the Raiders scored none of their points. The Jets quarterback is an adorable lad by the name of Mark Sanchez. He's a rookie. But rookie or not, I don't know that anyone should have given a fat rat's ass about what he did on the sidelines of the game during the fourth quarter. But you'd think that he'd put on his helmet and forgot his pants with the amount of coverage that what he did was receiving on all of the sports shows. He did something that not only was noticed, was filmed and was shown over and over and over with the commentators who were calling the game mentioning it, but it was something that I guess because of the coverage, he felt he needed to say that he was sorry for and that he shouldn't have done. Intrigued yet? Just a wee bit curious as to what the naive little rookie QB did? I hope you're sitting down for this one. He ate a hot dog.

Wait. Is that it? A...a hot dog?

Correct. A hot dog. It seems as though the guy hadn't been feeling well for a few days and didn't eat before the game. Now, I cannot imagine playing a game in the NFL on an empty stomach. I mean, you've gotta run! If you can't run, you're gonna get tackled. It has to be hell to be tackled in the NFL as it is, but on an empty stomach? I think I'd be puking up my actual stomach. (They'd need a time out to take care of that!) You've gotta eat!

So he hadn't eaten before the game and, according to Hot Dog Sanchez (the ol' HDS) as quoted over there at the Huffington Post (who, by the way, went with the headline "Mark Sanchez Hot Dog Video: Jets QB Eats Hot Dog During Game" Good Lord, HuffPo....), he "wasn't feeling very good" and "a little queasy." And for some reason he thought that a stadium hot dog would make him feel less queasy. I don't know how that factors into the equation, but at least he didn't ask for nachos or something like that. (Hey! He wasn't Nate Newton playing for the Cowboys when he tackled someone and a Snickers bar popped out of his uniform! Give the guy a break!)

But taking the questionable medicinal purposes of a stadium wiener out of the equation, they're leading 38 to zero. I wouldn't care if the guy had a hot dog on the sidelines or a slab of prime rib with a side of horseradish! They're going to win! For all intents and purposes, they'd already won! The only reason they were still playing the game is because league rules state that you have to! But given the headline over at HuffPo and the coverage of the event (as the noshing of said dog was seen repeatedly on various evening sportscasts) you'd have thought this guy was eating explosives and planning to blow himself up when the final whistle blew. What the hell is wrong with people?

Clearly that question cannot be answered here or anywhere else for that matter, so we'll just do what we always do and chalk it up to folks being morons and in need of anything posing as either entertainment or controversial. (And really, this is kind of neither, so we're back to just folks being morons. It's not really OK with me, but it's expected.) Let's see how the scenario unfolded, shall we? The text of the flabbergasted commentators is below and the video is below that.

You know that life is good when you're the quarterback of the New York Jets and you can eat a hot dog on the sidelines. During the last TV time out, Mark Sanchez is trying his best to hide a hot dog...and eat it. Oh, wow!

Did that one guy really say "Oh, wow!" Good Lord, he did. ::: sigh ::: And apparently, life isn't good enough to whichever of those dough heads said that for one to just be the quarterback for the New York Jets. No, you have to be the quarterback AND eat a hot dog on the sideline. Only then will life be "good". ANNNNNyway....do you want to bet whether or not they could even control themselves so that they wouldn't ask him about it after the game? Please bet. Please bet and say that they could control themselves. Oh! Or better yet, please bet and say that they realized that a guy whose team is ahead 38 to nothing in the fourth quarter eating a hot dog during a TV time-out is not important. Please bet me that! The dialogue that wins me that bet is as follows:

Dumbass Commentator: "During TV time outs, we leave our cameras on..."

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I heard."

Dumbass Commentator: "Have you always been a mustard guy on your hot dog?"

Hungry Mark Sanchez: "Oh. Yeah, that was stupid. I didn't eat much before the game this morning. I couldn't eat. I had a terrible stomachache. And on the sideline I asked somebody for a hot dog and they got one. And I tried to eat it...and..."

Dumbass Commentator: So it was medicinal?"

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Yeah, I wasn't feeling very good, but, uh, I'm going to get in trouble for that one, I bet. So, I'm sorry."

Dumbass Commentator: "Hey, Mark, have a good one!"

Hungry Mark Sanchez:"Thanks guys. You too!"

Did you read that? Did you get how they made him feel like he had to apologize for eating a hot dog on the sidelines? And he tells them that he's probably going to get in trouble for it and what do they say? "Have a good one!" They seem to gloss over the part about him getting in trouble. I can only imagine what he was thinking if, in fact, he really will "get in trouble" I'm guessing it would be something like: Thanks, asses! Thanks for pointing that out to the world. Appreciate it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go eat whatever I want without a camera on me and see if I have to keep talking about this.

Sphere: Related Content

More Truth Stretching at MSNBC

How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job? OK, maybe that's a bit harsh. (It's not, but I can try to pretend that he has employable qualities that I don't find loathesome.) How in the world does Keith Olbermann even have a job at MSNBC doing anything that involves anything more than pushing a mop? I'm not totally sure of the circumstances which enabled him to have his current job as a newshole for MSNBC and I really don't care. All I care about at this point is what circumstances it will take to have him removed from any sort of a position which involves his conveying information to the public under the guise of it being 'news'.

I'm not a big fan of cable news, mainly because the newsholes that run these shows are abhorrent human beings. They clearly have an agenda, but they act as if they don't. I don't know what purpose that serves, other than it technically allows them to have a job title with the word 'news' in it.They are far more commentary disguised as news than they are actual news. Regardless, I am aware of some sort of childish feud which seems to be going on between Keith Olbermann of MSNBC and a one Bill O'Reilly of Fox News.

I use the term 'feud' to be polite. The more correct but also more crude term for what their deal is would be a pissing match. And it's been going on since 2003! It seems to include little more than each one of them belittling the other one on their show. I don't know if they're holding their urination contest nightly these days, but if it isn't nightly, it's damn close.

And just to clarify, these are two grown men who each have their own cable "news" show. Real mature. It reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George became obsessed with being able to use his snappy comeback for an insult that happened many days before. It was like he was going to literally explode if he didn't track this guy down and tell him, "Oh, yeah? Well, the jerk store called. They're runnin' out of you!" The problem with that was that the guy was quicker on his feet than George and managed to whip out a snarky comment immediately. When that happens, there's nothing else to do other than tell the guy, "I slept with your wife!" Gets 'em every time. Unless the wife is in a coma. But I digress.)

But here's where it goes from a pissing contest to irresponsible journalism, also known as flat out lying. It even goes past lying. This goes under the category of "Making The News What I Want It To Be" by Keith Olbermann.

It seems that on August 24, Bill O'Reilly made this statement on his show: "They have no audience. Nobody. What you just said is like saying 'All right, the Toledo Mud Hens are going to be mad.' OK? I'm not insulting the Toledo Mud Hens, but they're a Double-A baseball team....What they think about the New York Yankees doesn't matter." Wow. A Toledo Mud Hens reference. Didn't see that one coming. Anyway, that was supposed to be some sort of an analogy explaining why the White House should allow President Barry to appear on Fox News even though it would likely cause the folks over at MSNBC to go ape-dung. It shouldn't matter if the folks at MSNBC get miffed because no one watches them, so who cares if they get upset? Fair enough. Lousy analogy, but fair enough.

Mr. Olbermann over there at MSNBC didn't quite see it the same way that I did. Shocking, I know. He saw it from his perspective. The one he invented. Here is his response that he gave on his show that aired on August 25, the night after Bill O'Reilly made the infamous Mud Hens Comparison (the ol' MHC): "I hate to intrude with the facts but ours is the highest rated cable news program viewers 35 and younger and the highest rated cable news program for all viewers not on Fixed News. And since Fixed News has since now migrated completely over to serving propaganda to tin foil hatters, conspiracy theorists, paranoids and racists it is not a news organization making this show the highest rated cable news program, period." Wait. What now?

Sooooo.....the highest rated cable news program for one age demographic? And you're also the highest rated cable news program amongst everyone who isn't watching Fox News? Well, that right there is an extremely handy exclusion to include! That's like if you're running a race and come in 6th and you say, "I was the fastest runner of all runners not crossing the finish line before I did." How convenient! Convenient perhaps, but hardly true or factual.

In fact, Keith Olbermann is not only misrepresenting the facts, it would appear from looking at the ratings over there at TV By the Numbers that he's flat out lying. According to their data,in the 25-54 age group and the 35-64 age group at 8PM The O’Reilly Factor managed to grab the attention of 3,440,000 viewers (916,000 in the 25-54 range and 1,593,000 in the 35-64 range). Meanwhile, over at MSNBC,Countdown with Keith Olbermann reeled in a comparatively paltry 1,114,000 viewers (323,000 in the 25-54 range and 521,000 in the 35-64 range).

Now, if you're looking at the networks viewership ratings overall, the numbers are a lot closer, with Fox reining in 94.82 million households and MSNBC garnering 93 million households, a difference of only 1.82 million households. I don't know if a household equals a viewer (let's see....three feet in a yard....four quarts in a gallon....takes one to know one....nope, not sure if a household equals a viewer), but if it did, that 1.82 million more that Fox has is just a little bit lower than how many more viewers Bill O'Reilly has than Keith Olbermann does. If I'm going to use Keith Olbermann logic and calculations here, I would conclude that Bill O'Reilly is the reason that Fox has higher ratings overall than MSNBC does. But I'm not Keith Olbermann, thank God, so technically, I won't say it. Then again, you can't go back and un-ring a bell either.

And just to clear things up even more, here are the cable news shows ratings for August 24:

The O'Reilly Factor - 3,440,000 viewers

Hannity - 2,937,000 viewers

Glenn Beck - 2,810,000 viewers

On The Record w/ Greta Van Susteren - 2,450,000 viewers

Special Report with Bret Baier - 2,066,000 viewers

Fox Report w/Shep Smith - 1,860,000 viewers

Countdown w/ K. Olbermann - 1,114,000 viewers

Larry King Live - 1,063,000 viewers

Olbermann isn't just behind in viewers to O'Reilly; he's behind in viewers to almost everyone. Olbermann is just barely ahead of 127-year old Larry King (Barely A-)Live. And those numbers were for the 8pm time slot. If the shows had aired earlier, Larry King might well have beaten Olbermann, as by 8pm, most of the people who watch Larry King (who are at least as old as he is) have been in bed for 3 hours.

For Keith Olbermann to sit there and flat out claim that he has higher ratings than Bill O'Reilly demonstrates that Olbermann has an agenda (himself) and that he doesn't care what the truth is, he will only say what he wants to say and how he wants to say it, regardless as to whether it is true or not. And in this particular instance, his statements are false. For Keith Olbermann to claim that Fox is spouting propaganda to it's brain dead audience just gives you a little insight as to how brilliant Olbermann thinks that his audience is. If Olbermann thought that his audience had half of a functioning brain cell inside of their teeny, tiny little pin heads, he wouldn't be lying to them by providing them with false information about his own ratings.

Olbermann claims that those who watch Fox News are "tin foil hatters". Mr. Olbermann likely knows a little bit about hats as he seems to be quite the asshat himself, specializing in his own brand of asshattery, apparently.

This instance makes twice in the past ten days that a purported news program on MSNBC has deliberately misled the viewers into believing that something was a fact when, in fact (ironically enough) it was not a fact AND those doing the 'reporting' knew it was not factual information that they were providing. While both O'Reilly and Olbermann are being ridiculously childish and using their platform of cable television news programs to hurl insults at each other on a semi-nightly basis, at least O'Reilly (in this instance) didn't lie. The bottom line here is that if you want to watch a cable news show that will give you the facts without distorting them or lying about them, don't turn to MSNBC for that information. I'm not saying you should turn to Fox, I'm just saying that you'll probably want to turn to a channel that has not lied to the viewers in the past ten days. That's all.

Sphere: Related Content

Not-So Live, Not-So Breaking, Not-So News

Of course, if it's news, CNN is there. And I have to guess that wherever CNN is that they're doing a story, it's because they must think it's news. And if they get there soon enough, it will be billed as either "Breaking News" (See, now, anything else that's taking a "break" is resting. But not news. If there's a "break" involved with news, it's definitely doing something. And yet the news is supposed to make sense out of stories. Oh, the irony.) or it will be billed as a "Live Developing Story" (as opposed to a video made last Tuesday of some guy, sitting at his desk, reading about something that happened a month ago). Either way, both would seem to connotate news that's just beginning to happen and it's important that people know about it!

Thus, when I see the banner "Live Developing Story" on CNN.com, I'm expecting news.

I'm not expecting this:

What the hell? THAT is CNN's idea of a "Live Developing Story"? Which part, exactly, was "developing"? That Theodore Roosevelt actually had a birthday? That he was just then turning 150? ( And since there isn't a Federal holiday did all of the lawmakers and government employees want the day off, so they needed something to waste time and do nothing so that it felt like a holiday?)

How is that a "developing story"? Was it unplanned? Suddenly all of the staffers just burst into a rounding verse of "Happy Birthday To You" without any warning whatsoever? Then a White House page sprinted to the Bat Phone or whatever they use and dialed direct to CNN to "tip them off"? I'm just not seeing it. But as far as the singing goes, that does seem like what went on, according to a one Judie Chrobak-Cox who provided the colorful commentary of "Sang Happy Birthday, had cake." That's it. Hmm. Concise.

If Theodore Roosevelt's 150th birthday is being billed as a "Live Developing Story", you know it's a slow news day. After all, the man has been dead for quite some time now, since 1919. It's not like he was there opening presents and having cake. But if he was then that would absolutely qualify as a "Live Developing Story" and I would definitely want to see that! But seeing the guy below dressing up as Theodore Roosevelt (complete with....stuffed bear?) to entertain the masses at the White House? That I can do without.

Sphere: Related Content