Wednesday, March 16, 2011

What's up with the media?

What happened here? Several typing mistakes in one name, while it's perfectly possible to write the name correctly several times on a different page of the video text.

But let's move away from this. I notice a new tendency in the news, and it's about video text again, so the pictures above fit.

The video text is probably known in most countries, it's a service on tv that you can enable with your remote (in most cases, some tv devices don't have it). Then there are information pages in the video text, and it's like a newspaper on screen.

The one thing I noticed recently is how unsatisfying it can be when the people who type the news are faster than the people who read them. I have to examples to explain what I mean:

1. Some time ago, Robert Kubica from Poland, a race driver, had a bad accident which will stop him from competing in Formula One for many months. I had not heard about this the previous evening, which was a Sunday. The next morning, Monday at around 6am, I checked the video text and was shocked to read things about Kubica. But what I read was not "Kubica injured after crash yesterday" or "Kubica had an accident on Sunday at xx o'clock". What I read was "F1 pilots worried about Kubica's condition" or "Season over for Kubica". Even worse, in the text, there was no indication what exactly had happened or when the accident occured. It took me a lot of time to find out that the accident had happened less than 24 hours ago.

2. Felix Magath, coach of football team Schalke 04, was to be fired. They had been talking about this for a while. But then from one day to the next, the video text mentioned that a new coach was going to be in the team very soon, but the second in command coach (the so far assistant) was going to train the team until then. But then again, no word about Magath having been fired yet. I had to change to a different tv channel to find out that Magath was expected to be fired on THAT very same day that I was checking the video text at 6:30 am.

What we learn from this is that everything needs to be faster. It's really annoying when news media only throw around keywords, but don't even refer to anything that happened before or is not even 24 hours old. It's hard to follow. On the other hand, when there's a disaster such as the one currently happening in Japan, the news reports loop over and over for hours, you get the same stuff replayed all the time.

Another thing that bugs me is the lack of being neutral in the news. I notice more and more often how people who present the news use words that are filled with opinions. Stuff like "the sick leader Gaddafi" or "he slaughters his people". I mean, sure, he does that stuff and he seems sick and wrong in the head, but since when is it okay that the guys and girls on the news tell us what to think? What's next? Normal politicians who don't kill people are stupid or annoying, and after that, the media tell us who to vote etc.

I just believe that it's important to know what's going on and not be manipulated. For example, if a tv station makes a poll about "should all nuclear reactors be shut down", and you have to call in order to vote, then you get a 88 per cent "yes" vote. BUT: If it's a representative poll (that means that you call the people and don't ask those to call who feel most outraged), then you only get less than 60 per cent. But many people don't know that these differences exist, and they take the results of polls or the opinion-making of the media for granted. Manipulation is everywhere.

Last but not least, I hope that Japan will be okay. I usually don't care so much when natural disasters happen, because they just do happen anyway, but in Japan's case... it's just a country I care a little more about. They have contributed a lot to our standard of living, and they are cool. So yeah... I hope things get better there.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

New stuff about men and women

I was lucky to be in a shop today where the radio was on. They said that scientists found out that couples without children are generally happier than couples with children. And that couples with children claim that having children is so great, not because they think it's true but because they are unhappy and want to pretend. Even as a "belief system", to make themselves think they are happy.

So what do we learn? Don't trust what people say. Couples without children really are happier, and children being so wonderful is only another myth. Really, I can't stand the constant noise of children.

Speaking of child noise: The German government has passed new laws and insists that noise from kindergartens and other places is not a reason to sue. Noise from children is considered natural and should be bearable. Well... yeah. That's just their way of trying to make the country more child-friendly. It does not change the fact that children are very annoying.

On top of that, I would like to add that not the normal noise of children is a problem, it is also the way children behave now compared to decades ago.

Some decades ago, parents were a lot stricter and harsh. Children were not the "equal partners" that parents nowadays see in them. Children had to adapt to whatever was going on around them, especially in public.
Look at today: Not only does the education of children at home suck, there is also an enormous amount of hypersensation, if that's the word. So many commercials, so much capitalism, so much BIG and CRAZY stuff going on. Spongebob, Spongebob, lah lah lah, loud loud loud. In cartoon series, everything is so damn loud all the time. It's no surprise that children immitate this behaviour.
When I grew up, I watched the smurfs on tv. And they were pretty quiet. They were at times in fear when they had to run away from the bad guy, but:

Can you imagine Papa Smurf screaming like he has a cactus in his ass, his head spinning like a helicopter blade and then exploding? Please imagine it!

I'm just comparing back then with today, alright? You get the idea.

Really, this is what children are like... but now to something completely different.

What else is new... Oh yeah. Looks like women are AGAIN not as good as everyone makes us think. You know what it has been like. Women are always better than men. More loyal, sweet, trustful, romantic, always better than evil men who only cheat (especially if they are latinos).

Now something came up. A new article. "The more beautiful a women, the shorter the relationships". Psychologists found out that relationships last longer if the man is the more beautiful person in the relationship. Because then, women will "accept" that they are well off and not leave the man. If the woman is more beautiful than the man, the woman will still try to find someone better. That's so interesting because the article also pretty much says that men don't do these things. I mean... relationships are not shorter just because the guy is better looking. So... now who are the bad ones?

I'm really pissed off that men are always the ones who have the bad name in society. It's always this "men are like that" or "men are assholes" attitude in our society. But it's interesting when the facts suddenly say other things... oh well, that's it for now.