By-Ass

If I hear one more thing about the bias of the media, I think I'm going to eat a container of sour cream with a whole bunch of overripe bananas mixed in there and then throw up on some old lady at a bus stop.

Don't judge me-- it's how I feel, so I can't be wrong.

NPR is liberal. Fox News is conservative. Mainstream media-- like "The Today Show" and "ABC World News Tonight" and all those annoying shows with John Stossel have routinely been accused of having a "liberal bias". That Andrew Breitbart (who, you know, has a few more followers than me, but whatever) went on "The Today Show" on Tuesday and repeated the oft-repeated line about the mainstream media's liberal bias when discussing his role in bringing down Weinermobile. Really, I think we talk so much about bias in the media that, after a while, we don't even know what the fuck we're talking about.

Not that this stops anyone, of course, nor should it. This is America, after all, where the less we know, the more we talk. And God Bless Us, everyone. Except that Tiny Tim, who hardly ever says shit, so fuck him.

If you've taken any 100-level journalism course, you of course know that journalism is supposed to be objective. What does that really mean, though? You're supposed to report a story, give both sides, let the reader make up his or her mind. Ja, Mein Fuhrer? Sounds simple, no? Well, it's not. If you ever listen to news on the radio, you can tell by an announcer's inflection what he or she thinks of the story, or what the news organization's parent organization would like the announcer to reflect in his/her recitation of the news item. Oh, Knight Ridder: stop telling David Hasselhoff how to drive.

I don't think it's anything revolutionary or anything that will have Dianne Sawyer taking off her top to say that there is no such thing as true journalistic objectivity. "The News" is always trying to get us to think a certain thing. For example, "The News" wants us to sympathize with people who "Overcome Adversity." Remember the homeless guy with the golden voice that every asshole from here to Omaha was Tweeting out their tuchuses about? Oh, yeah, remember when "The News" lionized him until he was given a job or two and some respectability?

Oh, yeah-- remember when he relapsed because he was given money but no counseling, support, or life skills to assist him with his new, improbable circumstances?

Oops!

Which was more reported? The YouTube sensation of finding him panhandling, or his (most recent) fall from grace?

Right.

The unfortunate latest turn of events in this story created what is known as cognitive dissonance, that is to say, it didn't fit with the "packaged" news item that "The News" wanted to feed you. It was like finding a sprig of cilantro in your chocolate mousse. And nobody wants that. Except food pervs.

I was thinking about this tonight because I just happened to spy a story that piqued my interest on Yahoo! News. (Can you really trust any "news" source that ends in an Exclamation Mark?[!])

"Cop Fired After Helping Fellow Officers in Distress"

From the opening sentence that follows this clever hook of a headline (hey, got me[!]), it is abundantly clear what this 'news' organization wants you to feel: that this officer was fired unjustly.

"It was a Saturday on campus when David Sedmak, a Rice University police officer, heard "Officer down, officer down!" on his scanner: Two members of the Houston Police Department had been shot downtown. Sedmak rushed to the scene to help his fellow officers."

"Wow! That guy's a hero!" Yahoo! News wants you to say, either out loud or in your head. The article picks up right where this statement you just made ends with:

"But Rice [University!] didn't see Sedmak as a hero. Instead, the university fired him, citing "dereliction of duty."

*GASP!* They "didn't!" you're supposed to say.

Oh, but they did. And, call me a contrarian, but I think they were right to do so.

See, the only reason Officer Sedmak heard that two Houston Police Officers were shot was because he had a scanner in his car. Had he just had his Rice University Police Department issued radio on him, he would not have known, because this Officer Down call would not have been broadcast over that frequency. Sedmak's response was unnecessary, seeing as half the Houston Police Department was flying to the scene of this double shooting (both wounded officers survived, by the way).

So, Sedmak responded to a call for help from another department, which might have been okay had he radioed his dispatcher to tell him/her that he was doing so. But Sedmak didn't make radio contact with his dispatcher, or his supervisor. He just sped off into the night to assist the officers. Which is an unfortunate error, because Rice University dispatch had no idea where Officer Sedmak was for around an hour, during which time they probably thought he was lying dead somewhere, and who knows what frantic efforts went on to raise him and/or search for him. When a police officer doesn't respond to dispatch over the radio for an hour, that's a crisis, because he's usually either incapacitated or dead.

Sedmak's heart was in the right place, but his body wasn't. As a law enforcement officer for nearly 17 years, that man should have known enough to contact dispatch and request permission to proceed to the scene of the shooting. But he didn't. And, in a job where following protocol is paramount as a safety issue, there needs to be accountability and consequences. Should he have been fired? I don't know. Maybe he should have received a reprimand. A suspension. Re-education. Or, maybe he should have been fired. Maybe there's other shit in his personnel file that we don't know about, and this was the straw that broke the sergeant's back.

The thing of it is: the Yahoo! News article, and its author, Zachary Roth, is guilty, through tone and text, of telling us what we ought to think and feel. And I don't need them telling me what to think and feel, just like I don't need Tiny Tim blessing me when I don't want to be blessed.

Thanks anyway, though.

What Are You Searching For, America?

While Mr. Apron is hip, snarky, up-to-the-minute and checks his email using Gmail, I, the scoliosisy, asthma-afflicted, mild-mannered human doppelganger utilize Yahoo! Mail, as I've done since the year 2000, when I became convinced that Y2K was going to assrape my Hotmail account and destroy all my rejection emails from publishing companies, law schools, area non-profits and girls.

Because I use Yahoo! Mail, I am treated to an endless supply of ridiculous, thoroughly un-newsworthy Yahoo! News headlines, such as

"NFL Team's Disastrous Trick Play"

"Regifting Rules to Abide By" and

"Wacky New Year Glasses Live On For 2010 Despite the Pesky '1'"

(I swear to God, these are all real. If I'm lying, let my dick turn into a clown's nose.)

Not only do I get to be kept informed of the latest happenings in the vast and colorful world of newsyfluffnotainment, I get a helpful little box in the upper righthand corner of Yahoo!.com called "Web Pulse." It's a list of 10 persons, places, or things that are, presumably, the hottest Yahoo! searches of the moment. Here's what people are getting all searchy about today:

1.) Alaina Reed Hall

2.) White House Christmas

3.) Heath Ledger

4.) Serena Williams

5.) NFL Power Rankings

6.) Christmas Cupcakes

7.) Brady Quinn

8.) Susan Boyle

9.) Stonehenge

10.) Citibank

That, I think, gives you a pretty solid idea of where we Americans are as a society. My first reaction upon digesting the compendium of terms and names that make up this list was,

"Stonehenge?! What the fuck is that doing there?"

Then again, maybe I have underestimated us as a people. But probably not. Stonehenge is probably the nickname of some gay porn star wrestler who spraypaints his balls gray.

I think it's very interesting to have this little "Web Pulse" at my disposal, because it gives me a good idea of what makes the web-crawling populous tick. Not that I especially need to know, but I like to nonetheless. The Web Pulse gives me a window not only into the lives of people out there, but it gives me a more accurate picture of where I stand amidst the throng.

It usually lets me know that I am out-of-touch. For instance, on this particular sampling of the Web Pulse, I did not know what 3 out of the 10 items meant. I don't know who Alaina Reed Hall is, I don't know who Brady Quinn is (I don't even know if it's a guy or a girl), and I don't know what the NFL Power Rankings are, although I'm going to go tap-dancing on the ice and guess that they have something to do with professional football.

I'm going to go Googling these three terms and educate myself-- and I'm going to go Googling because people don't go Yahooing. Sorry, Yahboys.

Interesting.

So, when you Google "Alaina Reed Hall," the Google search bar suggests that you might want to Google the following:

Alaina Reed Hall wikipedia
Alaina Reed Hall husband
Alaina Reed Hall pics

or

Alaina Reed Hall breast cancer

See? The internet is fascinating. I'm in the nascent infancy of my Alaina Reed Hall education, and, without having clicked "Search" I already know that she has a wiki entry, a husband, pics, and breast cancer. This is going to be fun!

Aaaaaaaaand........ SEARCH!

Oh.

She's the woman on Sesame Street who just died. Of breast cancer. Well. That's depressing.

Moving on-- who's Brady Quinn? Sounds like someone who either plays baseball or is on "American Idol."

Aaaaaaaand........ SEARCH!

Hey! Look at that! He plays fucking football! I was so close! Maybe he's power-ranked or something. There's a whole shitload of stats and shit on his Wikipedia page that I don't understand, but I do understand that he's dating Olympic gymnist Alicia Sacramone whose name, I'm sure, has seen its fair share of time up on Yahoo's! Web Pulse.

And, last but not least, to complete my education for the day.... NFL Power Rankings. Oh, things I put myself through for you....

Aaaaaaand......... SEARCH!

Oh my God.

I think my cerebellum just exploded and is leaking down my spinal column. This is about ten trillion times more confusing than Brady Quinn's Wiki-page.

I'm frightened, Mommy.

Fortunately, there were plenty of items on this Web Pulse that I did understand-- like Christmas cupcakes, which even a slithery little Jew like me knows are delicious! Mmm! I wanna take a big red velvety bite out of Santa's big ol' sleigh-ridin' butt!

I also definitely understand peoples' desire for harmless voyeurism by learning all about what a White House Christmas must be like. How do the servants set the silverware? Are they going to use crimson damask napkins? What will the centerpieces be like? What will Michelle Obama be wearing? Will Secret Service agents wrestle Santa to the ground, water-board and interrogate him about the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden? Who will slice the Christmas ham?

Even though I'm admittedly out-of-touch, I think I even know why people are searching for Serena Williams. She's been in the news lately because she unleashed a foul-mouthed, Dear Apron-like tirade at a line judge during a game a while back, threatening to kill her and stating that she was going to shove a fucking tennis ball down the bitch's throat, or something to that effect. The tennis overlords came down hard on Serena and fined her a shitload of money, which she will probably proceed to shove down other line judge's throats.

Americans like it when athletes go apeshit. We also like it when they have hot wives and fuck lots of other hot chicks, and some who are not-so-hot, too, and some who look like they couldn't even get a day-shift at a local beaver hut in Paducah, Kentucky.

As for searches for "Susan Boyle" and "Citibank," I guess that's just a reflection of the American public's two most frequently-asked questions these days,

"Ugly people can be talented?"

and

"Where the fuck did all my money go?"

I was somewhat surprised and yet heartened to see Heath Ledger ring in at number 3 on today's Web Pulse. Only in America can you be dead, and named "Heath," and still be the third most searched item on the Yahoo! Web Pulse.

Good for you, Candy Bar Dead Guy.

Conjunction Misfunction

I normally don't cringe too much when people flog the Queen's English. I don't know why, really, because I'm a pretty pretentious and uptight kind of guy, and I like to think I always know when to use "whom" and how to spell "efficacious" without looking it up.

But I just looked it up.

My wife is usually the one who is most significantly bothered, of the people I know and love, when folks commit their linguistic solecisms. One of her co-workers made up a word recently, I can't remember what it was, and, when my wife heard it, she told me, "I died a little inside."

The thought of one of my dear, sweet wife's ribs or ovaries shriveling up, turning black and decomposing inside her body is most distressing to me, far more upsetting than some random schmuck-ball using "there" instead of "their." However, when I went to check my email this morning and was greeted with the following headline and teaser sentence from Yahoo News, I have to confess that I, too, died a little inside:

Mishaps, Spills at American Music Awards

“Taylor Swift wins big, Paula Abdul has a mic misfunction, and Jennifer Lopez falls down while performing.”

I'm sorry-- what, exactly, is a "misfunction?" Is it a function that has yet to get married?

The sad fact, ladies and gentlemen, that will be immediately apparent to anyone who has ever graduated middle school and/or was raised on "School House Rock" that "misfunction" is not a word. When I copied-and-pasted it into MS Word, it got the red-underline-of-death.

The word is "malfunction," motherfucker.

This stupid grammatical misfunction shouldn't make me angry, but it does. Why? Because there is some arrogant little shitbird who probably spends more time on Facebook than s/he does at his/her job who gets to work in Manhattan probably and has no concept of how to write in the English language. And yet, that is what this person gets paid to do. S/he gets to call him/herself a journalist. Or a writer. A professional, at that. And if that doesn't make someone like me mad, well, then nothing, short of dropping a large piece of furniture on my left testicle will.

I was tempted to click on the headline to read the rest of the article to see how many other typographical misfunctions there were, but I just couldn't bring myself to click. Clicking on the article, I think, gives my acquiescence to the piece as a whole, and I can't do that.

Of course, I could go into another direction here and rant about how J. Lo falling on her famous ass or Paula Abdul's mic missssssfunctioning isn't really news in the first place, but why bother. On the Today Show, there was a five minute piece about how Prince William might get engaged to his girlfriend. Because there was a picture of her wearing a ring. Not an engagement ring, though. And not on the right finger, either. It's just, you know, gossip.

Not, you know, news.

Which is just another example of how the modern media is all kinds of missfucked up.

The Wrong Trousers, Gromit

Apparently, this is news:

Because I use Yahoo for my email service (don't try to find me, you creepy stalker peoples) I get to be constantly regaled and frustrated by what passes for Yahoo "News" in the form of six so-called "Top Stories" that are presented to me before I am able to read my email. Very recently, at least three of the six headlines are mandated to contain the words "flu" and "swine," but there's still room for a little variety and creativity, I'm pleased to report.

Yesterday, one of the headlines, in fact, the FEATURED headline was not about the latest intercontinental influenza or the now certain demise of Chrysler Corporation, but the above-pictured schmuck's trousers.

I stared at the headline for a moment or two in utter disbelief.

"John Daly's Horrifying New Golf Pants Are Visible from Orbit."

I mean-- you're kidding me, right?

That this "story" is presented as "news" is the first insult to our humanity, intellect and status as supposed life forms of superior intelligence. Superior to the intelligence of whom, may I ask? News editors? I guess so. The writer of the piece did not even include a Google Earth picture as evidence to support their contention that Daly's pants are discernable from those of the rest of us from the stratosphere.

The piece, which is only 150 words long, tipped the moron-meter by receiving 2,312 comments in less than 24 hours.

Are you sure the superior intelligence designation doesn't give you even a moment's pause?

Here's the thing, I don't have any problem with the occasional "fluff" piece. Hey, sometimes we need a break from mass hysteria, hype and phillandering politicos, but some d-bag running around golf greens swathed in gaily-colored, socially unfit or otherwise dubious attire isn't fluff, or news. People have been doing that for centuries. Don't believe me?

Check these vintage mothas out out, puttin' it old school:

This one's Japanese, but still...

Then there's this guy. Oy vey. Payne-ful.

This one must have been from a tournament scheduled on Halloween. But, aren't they all?

Seriously, though-- golf has eternally been a haven for those with questionable and eccentric wardrobe leanings, so I don't know who this John Daly thinks he's kidding by pretending to be some great innovator by wearing clothes whose colors would barely be appropriate adorning the walls of a 5 year-old girl's My Little Pony-themed bedroom. If you ask me, the way to be different and anathema to the norm on the putting green is to show up in a white shirt and dark pants, you know-- like a normal person.

Now that would be different and, quite possibly, news.