For shame or for sham? · 21 December 05
I pass 5 Edmonton Journal distibution boxes during my walk to work every morning. I usually glance at the headlines, boldly displayed from behind protective plastic, as I pass. Sometimes the headlines make me angry, sometimes they make me sad and the odd time they make me actually stop and read more of the page (above the fold). One thing the headlines never do is make me actually buy the rag… though, this morning I nearly did.
Box 1 – The headline reads: “City OKs smoking on buses”. What?
Box 2 – Yup it really says “City Oks smoking on buses”
Box 3 – Should I bother to get closer to read the byline?
Box 4 – How could they possibly approve smoking on an ETS bus when they have outlawed smoking in public places?
Box 5 – Got close enough to read the byline: “But private vehicles must be driveable and insured”. Well, that I agree with. Buses should always be both, whether there are smokers on them or not… but what is this about private buses?
Finally, I got to work and went to the www.edmontonjournal.com website to read the whole story. Shame on you, Edmonton Journal. Shame on you.
*Update: I just passed a couple Edmonton Sun boxes while walking home for lunch and noticed that on the front page of the Sun is a picture of Britney Spears (is she still famous?), and some bozo in a fedora, saying something about a sex tape. So, I take it back. Kudos to you Edmonton Journal for not having Britney Spears and a sex tape allegation on your front page. Sensationalism beats baseless crudity anyday. Kudos to you indeed.
[ File under: News & Irritants ]
— c 21 December, 03:29 pm