An Award-Winning Disclaimer

A charming little Magpie whispered this disclaimer into my ear, and I'm happy to regurgitate it into your sweet little mouth:

"Disclaimer: This blog is not responsible for those of you who start to laugh and piss your pants a little. Although this blogger understands the role he has played (in that, if you had not been laughing you may not have pissed yourself), he assumes no liability for damages caused and will not pay your dry cleaning bill.

These views represent the thoughts and opinions of a blogger clearly superior to yourself in every way. If you're in any way offended by any of the content on this blog, it is clearly not the blog for you. Kindly exit the page by clicking on the small 'x' you see at the top right of the screen, and go fuck yourself."

Monday, November 2, 2009


This is, unfortunately, going to be a very quick and short post, because I am due at my sister's apartment soon. I am to bring coffee and breakfast for both of us. This is the price we uncles pay for wanting to see our cute, new nephews. Remember that.

While I'm not generally in favor of restrictions on the media, I do think it should be illegal for any television news organization to report on a story that features a video clip shorter than three seconds-- five when played in slow-motion.

My wife and I this morning suffered through a four-minute interview piece (and two 10 second teasers) about the baby carriage falling under the train (and miraculously, no one got hurt!) and the clip was played, honest-to-God, approximately twelve to fourteen times. I wish I could say exactly how many times it was aired, but it was a little difficult to keep track. It was played while the mom was talking, because we can't possibly be asked to look at a static image of some non-airbrushed, non-celebrity talking for fifteen seconds without being shown grainy video of her running after her child's carriage twice in seven seconds. And we certainly can't listen to Matt & Meredith banter about it together after the interview's conclusion without seeing the video again.


The long and short of it is: news organizations, if you can even call them that, should be banned from reporting these non-stories that would never have made the news in the first place if they weren't caught on video tape to begin with. If they can't use the video clips responsibly (i.e., maybe showing it once, for Christ's sake) then they shouldn't be permitted to report on them at all.

And, for the love of God-- no more cars-driving-into-peoples-houses stories either, please. And no more bungee-cord jumps gone awry, or "routine traffic stops" gone awry, no more wild animals attacking people, no more celebrity nip-slips, no more children falling down wells, no more dogs falling down wells, no more children catching baseballs and throwing them back onto the field, and no more fucking Hfucking1 Nmotherhump1.


No more.


  1. Celebrity nip slips?

    Is that when a Japanese celeb falls down and sues the city because of the crack in the sidewalk? And some security camera caught it on tape?

    Or is that when a celebrity's cosmetic surgery goes horribly, horribly wrong?

  2. what do you expect them to do, honey? report the news? pshaw.

  3. While we're at it, can E! please stop giving non celebrity families their own shows? WTF!

    Kardashians, Lamas Really?


Got something to say? Rock on with your badass apron!