Yes. It's still that bad.
I wrote earlier about the worth of other people making me read a news story for a second time. Here's another example.
Actually, in this case, the commentary made me read the story for the first time. I didn't even make it past the headline of this one, this morning. I thought: bad. It turns out: worse.
I don't mean to step on Steve Benen's final line, but really. Who could help but think of a certain chocolatey dessert from the get-go?
As one minor consolation, I think I now understand Virgil Goode's recent misanthropy. I don't excuse it by any stretch, but at least I now see why an apparent raving lunatic is raving.
Because he's just following orders.
2 comments:
Hmmm... I read both (assessment; refugees) stories in the Times. Your yawning over them is probably a function of the manner in which you get your news -- I suggest a return to the good ol' days of newsprint!
That's an interesting point, but I don't think so.
Back in the days when I either subscribed to the paper or had it as part of my morning ritual to buy it from the newsstand, I often had the same problem of skimming or skipping stories that deserved more attention.
There are probably lots of reasons. Three that come to mind are: too much bad news, too many other things to read, and an inability to maintain as much focus as I'd like every time I'm reading. None of these wasn't a problem when I was reading the paper off of paper, though.
Post a Comment