Your "Meme-ory" Seems to Be Failing

I have to admit, I love seeing memes like this one.  It rates right up there with the Pledge of Allegiance one.  You know the one where we no longer say the Pledge.  There are times I wonder if the poster recalls the same behavior they had as an adolescent, that I recall them.  In fact, having taught teens since late 1970's, I am pretty sure that most "grown-ups" have said this at one time or another.  In other words, you  did speak to your parents disrespectfully. I heard and saw it more than few time in my career. Itis in fact a part of becoming independent - a separate person.  

Let me put it  another way:

“When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”

Guess who said this...go on guess. Okay, the pic gives it away.

Mark Twain who was born in 1835 and passed away in 1910 understood that all teens go through the "my parents are stupid" phase.

How about this one:
“Our youth now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for their elders and love chatter in place of exercise; they no longer rise when elders enter the room; they contradict their parents, chatter before company; gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

Guess who said this?

Socrates. He lived from 469 B.C. to 399 B.C. It seems this meme has landed on a somewhat ancient problem.  

An Act of Desperation

I don't know where you stand, sit or lie on the Trayvon Martin Case.  But of late there is an act of desperation to make other events seem to be in the same vein except that it is always a white guy beat up by black kids.  The problem is that the white guy is pretty much random, and the attack has nothing to do with his race. It is pretty clear that George Zimmerman picked Trayvon because he was black.

Those posting this, please ask yourself one simple question: Why do you need an evil black attacker?  Isn't the fact that someone was senselessly killed enough of a reason to be outraged? Take for example the meme above.  I am sure the family of Delbert Benton are thrilled to have him used this way.  By the time this meme showed up on my timeline, the two culprits, both had been identified by name, one was in custody, and the other was pretty well on his way to being captured.  The attack was a robbery, and it was a random.  But it's the question at the bottom: will the mainstream media pay attention.  The story has appeared on several sites like NBC which includes the video of the news report.  Meanwhile, angry extreme groups were on NBC's Facebook page demanding they report on it.  Perhaps if they got off the extreme conspiracy pages and actually look at news somewhere other than The Blaze or Fox, they would see it being reported.  If you want to follow the actually story, here is a link to KXLY in Spokane who have been covering the story.  They are, I think, a CNN affiliate.  Both suspects are in custody, and it does indeed appear to have been a random attack.

Then came this meme.

Actually I'd seen one like this first, but didn't really pay that much attention to it.  Note the pictures to make sure that it appears all three attackers are black.  They aren't. One is black, one is half black and one is white.  When they were first arrested, the 17 year old, Michael Jones said "they were bored." Notice that Jones looks surprisingly African American.  Let me show his real picture. 

This combination made with booking photos provided by the Stephens County, Okla., Sheriffs Department, shows, from left, James Francis Edwards Jr., 15, Michael Dewayne Jones, 17, and Chancey Allen Luna, 16, all of Duncan, Okla. Stephens County Sheriffs Department/AP.

You may notice that Michel Jones is the one in the middle. He's white. Now look at the meme.  Notice anything.  I don't know whose picture is being used as Michel Jones, but it is clearly, not Michael Jones. In fact, I am not terribly certain that any of the pictures are pictures of the people arrested. 

There were some racist tweets on the account of Francis Edwards, but it doesn't make the tragic and random slaying of Chris Lane a hate crime.  It makes it a stupid, senseless crime by three very sick and violent young men who went out for a thrill kill.  Perhaps rather than trying to turn this into something it isn't, we should be discussing how three individuals could become this violent.  As to the mainstream not reporting it, that's true, providing you don't count CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC,  Huffington Post, The Guardian (a British News Outlet), or The Christian Science Monitor (and that was just the first page of reports on Google news).  You can also find links to Washington Post, New York Daily News and the Birmingham News.  So I guess maybe there was some reporting done. While you're bringing up this as a hate crime, you may also want to discuss how three bored teens had easy access to guns to commit the murder.  

Trayvon Martin's death was a long ways away from a thrill kill or a random robbery. All three deaths are tragic and all three acts a mark of some disturbing issues we need to face.  Trying to make the acts a competition of racist hate is not helping.  I ask again, why are these people posting these memes so desperate for a black hate crime.  Don't we already have enough people getting killed for seemingly no reason? Let's deal with the cause of these random deaths rather than trying to make it a competition to see who has the most racially motivated crimes.

Please Don't Let The World's End Be the End

It started in 2004 when Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright wrote Shaun of the Dead.  A dark humored zombie movie Directed by Wright and starring Pegg and buddy Nick Frost.  It is a hilarious romp as do-nothing-with-your-life Shaun(Pegg) and Ed (Frost) try to win back Shaun's girlfriend and simultaneously save the town from the zombie apocalypse.

Then in 2007, came Hot Fuzz.  Again Pegg and Wright along with Frost  take us to a lovely British town that has a dark secret which culminates when, super cop,  Officer Nicholas Angel (Pegg) and his not overly bright partner, P.C. Danny Butterman (Frost) must save the town of Sanford which has the lowest crime rate in England.

And now in 2013, comes the "last" in the trilogy of Wright, Pegg and Frost, The World's End.  In the early 1990's, having graduated from school, five friends attempted a pub crawl of twelve pubs in a single night finishing the epic drink fest, at The World's End pub.  They didn't make it. Twenty years later, Gary King (Pegg) the once leader of the five who has done little with his life except drink, gets the old gang back together to once again try the pub crawl.


Again we have a quiet English town that is more than it appears.  Gary needs to complete this trek he started twenty years before.  Along the route, the five friends, will put to rest the past, struggle with directions of the lives that they now have, and Gary and his "wingman" and once very best friend, Andy Knightly (Frost), must come to terms with the night that broke their friendship.  More than this, though, the five  must not only work towards saving any future they might have, but save the future of all humankind. You might also note the names of King and Knightly as the crawl becomes something of an Arthurian quest for the grail of the last beer at the World's End.

It is a raucous, hilarious, alcohol-fueled romp as Pegg, Frost and company try to make it to the fabled last pub all the while fighting each other and the less-than-human town residents.  Their lives in danger, and they wonder, since they have been drinking, who will drive? The other three of the "five musketeers" are played by Martin Freeman, Eddie Marsan, and Paddy Considine.   It is clever, funny and filled with the unique humor that have become the hallmark of the Wright, Pegg, and Frost movies.  It is supposed to be the conclusion of the "trilogy" and all I can say is,  "Please say it isn't so."  After Shaun, Fuzz and now The World's End, these three must make more.  We need the laughs.

I'm NOT Batman

The twitter world exploded.  Facebook exploded. A number of comic book and movie sites explodes. It was announced that Ben Affleck is contracted as the new Batman.  Nerd rage went seemingly universal in a matter of seconds.  "Didn't you see Daredevil? He cannot act.  He is wrong for the role.  I want Josh Brolin.  I want Bale back.  I want Jim Caviezel. I think we should give it to..." On and on and on as if they had any choice in who Chris Nolan would pick for his movie.

As far as Daredevil goes, who do you blame for the movie when it goes wrong: the actors or the directors or the writers or everyone involved? (For the record, I don't hate Daredevil, but I never really followed the comic book either.) In any case, when most movies fail, its usually the director and producer that get the blame, except if they have a high profile star. Ryan Reynolds and Ben Affleck are cases, in point. Although, I don't see Bruce Willis getting blame for the stinkers he's done.  It appears to be a phenomenon in the comic book movie world.  This means actors are taking a much greater risk because they could anger the nerd base, be blamed for the movie's failure and be stamped as that character for the rest of their career.  Okay, I make an exception for Tom Cruise.  He gets blamed too when one of his movies fail.  

There were of course the jokes.  "I want Adam West. Will Matt Daymon be Robin? Glenn Close could play Batman.  Well, at least he has the chin.  Affleck can probably do Bruce Wayne but in no way can he be The Dark Knight."  There is a boat load of memes. There is even a  petition online to stop Warner Brothers from using Affleck as Batman in the new movie.

Then there are the arguments about revisiting actors who have already done the whole super hero thing.  Chris Evans who played both Johnny Flame in Fantastic 4 and Captain America is one example. Although the Josh Brolin folks have seemed to forgotten that he has done two comic book movies, Jonah Hex and Men in Black.  They have also forgotten that Halle Berry has done both Storm in the X-Men franchise and the much maligned Catwoman movie or that Liam Neeson has appeared in Darkman and The Dark Knight Rises, or Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool and Green Lantern.  Affleck actually has, until now, avoided returning to the cape world of super heroes. He turned down directing Man of Steel and has also turned down directing and starring in a Daredevil reboot.

There are a few voices that have asked a simple question, "What if it turns out Affleck is good at Batman?"  He will be the 15th Batman incarnation on TV, Movies, and Cartoons. His brooding Daredevil wasn't awful.  It was the movie that was weak. Affleck, like it or not, is an Oscar winning writer and director.  He has been acclaimed for his performances in movies like The Town.  Many were outraged by his lack of Best Director nomination for Argo. He also has more than a few action flicks in his resume. He is generally considered a nice guy.  So why shouldn't he get the part?  He made some bad movies.  Name an actor worth his salt that hasn't. Taking risk is what many actors do.  Some more than others.

There is also this.  I seriously question if Christian Bale is the best Batman, ever.  Don't get me wrong.  My favorite is the Dark Knight series.  But Bale's voice and delivery as the Dark Knight is more than a little over the top.  We also know that Nolan wants an older Batman for the Batman vs. Superman movies.  And finally, before we judge, do you remember this guy?

Or this guy?

Both these guys were considered to be the worst choices for the roles ever.  Michael Keaton brought the edge we've come to expect in the return to Dark Knight and away from the kinder and gentler Adam West of the 1960's.  Heath Ledger, coming off Brokeback Mountain and a Knight's Tale was considered a very bad choice for the iconic villain.  He was posthumously awarded the Oscar for his portrayal of Joker.  It was he who made the movie and perhaps the series. I would also remind you of the reaction to Daniel Craig being announced as the next Bond.  Like Affleck there were letters and petitions and a general outcry from the Bond nerds.

Finally, there is not one piece of film shot.  Not even a screen test. There are  zero pictures of Affleck as Batman, not even a costume test.  We have, in short, nothing that tells us that he isn't right for the role. I am not saying that I think Affleck is going to a great job as the Caped Crusader.  The fact is, we don't know.  I am willing to wait before I judge.

Adding "E" Doesn't make it Olde

1. There were rifles in the 1700's.  Not all muzzleloaders are muskets. Rifles have a twist or rifling and muskets are smooth bore.  There were also cannon, pistols, grenades and mortars as well as bayonets, swords, axe and other weapons. The people of that era were very aware of the advancement of weapons.

2. "Olde" is pseudo English and is often combined with faux archaic phrases like "ye olde".

3. Old English was spoken by the Anglo-Saxons beginning around the Fifth Century.  This was followed by Middle English beginning in the Twelfth Century (see Canterbury Tales).  By the time Shakespeare begins his career he is writing in Early Modern English in the 1600's.  

4. By the time of the American Revolution, the founders spoke Modern English.  If you don't believe this, try reading any number of poems and novels from the period or perhaps two fairly famous documents: The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution.  Both are clearly written in Modern English. 

The Right to Bear Arms is the Second Amendment to that last document.  It does not use the words musket, rifle, cannon or any thing else. It does, however, talk about a "well-regulated militia."

If you are going to create a meme, please check your facts.  Thanks. 

Coffee saves....Coffee kills...

When I was a kid, there was a movement to remove red dye  #12 from food.  At least I think it was red dye #12.  It could have been #3 or yellow #5.  All of them, artificial colors had been used by manufacturers and all of them had been shown in studies to cause cancer in rats.  Most were quietly phased out of foods by 2009. There was also one of the earliest artificial sweeteners, sodium cyclamate.  Cyclamate was banned by the Food and Drug administration in 1970 because it was linked to tumors in lab rats.  I once read that it would take using nearly 2.2 pounds of the stuff per day or week or some such nutty amount to have an effect. I have no idea if it is true.

One site says there has never been any side effects shown in humans. Other sites say that it has been linked to cancer, tumors, birth defects and chromosomal disorders.  I pick these two sites because one tries to look like a happy, harmless cyclamate site and the other is set up to show how scary the stuff is.  Gotta love optics. In any case cyclamate is still sold and approved in 50 countries.  

So what does this have to do with coffee? It is all about studies.  The problems we face is that too often studies are reported as fact before verification.  A published study does not mean it is accepted science.  Any scientist I've ever met will tell you that a study is published so it can be replicated and only when it is replicated again and again and again, is it considered to be valid.  This is despite what some of the researchers may claim on daytime talk shows.

It was two coffee studies reported in August on the same news show that caught my attention.  While I saw the first TV report in August, the actual study came out in July.  In late July, Time posted this about the wonders of coffee, and how it can do everything from protecting you from skin cancer to warding off Alzheimers. Then in late August came this little study, coffee is deadly.  Drinking more than four cups of coffee a day for those under 55 causes a higher rate of death.  Over 55, not so much.  That would seem to me to be a big marker that somehow coffee has a less deadly effect after a certain age.  I also have no idea how big a cup is.  A measuring cup is eight ounces,but a regular coffee cup for a coffee maker is six ounces.  I should point out a number of folks are already questioning the validity of this study.

The point is that far too often we see only one study in the news and seldom hear of the follow up evidence.  Yet such reporting causes sudden movements to ban this product or that.  We all know the theory of moderation in all things.  So before you post that meme to ban this or that or start a movement, please check the science. There are far too many things started on studies that are as yet meeting the standard.

A Meme of Two Masks

So here's the deal.  Last week, a rodeo clown wearing a Barrack Obama mask at the Missouri State Fair did what might be considered slightly more than a disrespectful act using the POTUS as his punchline.  Well, actually it was the announcer who asked if the crowd wanted to see "this guy" trampled and a few other clowns were also involved.  The result was an apology from the Missouri, a banning of the clown from the Missouri State Fair for life, a resignation from the announcer, sensitivity training for the other rodeo clowns who participated and a demand from the Missouri chapter of the NAACP for an investigation.

It was a largely a rural, mostly white crowd who was basically egged on to find humor in threatening a man wearing a black man's face.  Immediately a number of conservatives pointed to an incident when a clown donned a mask of George W. Bush in 1994.  There was no outrage over that demeaning of the President. There is a difference, of course.  The clown in the picture in the meme is not a clown.  It's a dummy used solely as bait for the bull fighter's protection.  There wasn't any act or routine to go with the mask.  The story of the 1994 incident is a matter of record. So the meme is completely misleading.

Was the Obama mask incident disrespectful, possibly racist and politically incorrect? Yes.  It had nothing to do with the mask used in 1994 that is currently being pointed to by conservative groups.  The routine was in poor taste.  When I first began researching this blog, I thought this is ridiculous.  Have we sunk so low that we have no sense of humor and not even clowns can be irreverent about the president because he is an African American.  I had no idea that the meme though was so misleading.

And yet, all that said, I have one thing no matter how distasteful I find the act.  We have not forgot our humor, but we have forgot something in this too.  The meme is wrong.  It is misleading and a lie.  The act is tasteless, and it is also protected by the First Amendment.  Despite how bad the act was and the outrage it caused, it is protected speech.  Humor has nothing to do with it.  We must protect this right.  We all must take responsibility for our actions and there is little to investigate and certainly the folks involved have been made responsible, there is really not much to investigate.  This is not a hate crime from what I've read, it was simple stupidity something I think we can all lay claim to on occasion.  If tasteless is a crime, a number of folks on facebook are in deep, deep trouble.

Peter and The Starcatcher, A Bit of Insanity

If your unfamiliar with the series of books which begins with Peter and the Starcatchers created by humorist Dave Barry and Ridley Pearson, that's okay,  It is series of adolescent novels that are prequels to the J.M. Barrie tale of Peter Pan.  They are the story of how an orphan becomes Peter Pan and a pirate name Black Stache  becomes Captain Hook.  If you are expecting any other clean, defining connection to the story don't.  There really isn't any.

The musical play, Peter and the Starcatcher is about as loosely related to the novels as it is to the original. That said, it is zany fun.  Dave Barry would approve, and, in fact, did.  The play is a story telling piece in which twelve actors perform as more than 100 characters.  It is the story of Boy, an orphan, who becomes Peter Pan and Molly, a Starcatcher, and their friendship. Peter just wants to be a boy for a little bit longer, and star stuff, the material that star catchers gather will give him just that.  It will in fact give him eternal youth.  What is more, it will also finally give Black Stache, the pirate, the hero to his villain that he has been looking for. Because the story involves the relationship between Peter and Molly, the play drops the "s" and it becomes Starcatcher instead of the plural name in the novel's title.

The show, with its cast of eleven men and one woman, is a good one.  The loosely related scenes are for the most part fun and more than a little bit insane.  The whole show is a little bit like the Marx Brothers meets Spamalot.  There is a steady flow of funnier and funnier scenes.  At the beginning of Act II, we are treated to the cast coming out and singing as unquestionably the funniest mermaids -not mermen- of all time.  This culminates in perhaps one of the funniest scenes I've seen on stage which is when Black Stache loses his hand which will inevitably make him the infamous Captain Hook.

This brings me to the person who steals the show.  John Sanders, who plays Black Stache in the touring company and played him on Broadway, is quick, funny, and the most memorable of characters in the play.  His Stache, to extend the earlier comparison, is the Groucho Marx of the show. He truly shows joy that all actors feel when they connect with a role.  Sanders has made that connection.

The show's adaptation comes from a process that its directors used to create its often loose cannon  style. Director Roger Rees, who is not only known for his directing skill but as the actor who portrayed Nicholas Nickleby in the play The Life and Times of Nicholas Nickleby, was asked to use the story telling methodology to adapt Peter and the Star Catcher. This was the same process used to create the eight and half hour long Nicholas Nickleby.  Soon after improving out a number of scenes, and with the approval from the authors of the book and Disney, writer Rick Elice (Jersey Boys and The Addams Family) was brought onboard to create a script that would often, thanks to the cast, look improvised.  No one thought the show would ever make it to Broadway.  When it did, no one thought it would last.  When it did, it was nominated for nine Tony Awards and took home five. It rapidly became an audience favorite.

The national tour of Peter and the Starcatcher is kicking off now in Denver and will be in town at the Ellie Caulkins Opera House through September 1.  If you can afford the tickets go see it.  If you like madcap antics and humor, you will love the show.  And don't forget to crow a little.

Just Wondering

As I was driving, I began to contemplate, of all things, stoplights.  I first began to wonder about when they were invented and how red , yellow and green came to mean stop, yield and go? Red I sorta get, since stop signs are red too but why pick on red?  Why not blue stop signs? And then once the colors were chosen -someone had to choose - how was that communicated to everyone else?  At some point there had to be enough drivers to warrant stop signs which was then followed by stoplights. But the question remains, how was this explained to the general public: newspaper, word of mouth, flyers, public address? How was this information given to every driver?

I also realized that when the first cars rolled out, there was no driver license required.  Anyone could drive a car.  Age didn't matter. Did horses and carriage require stop signs?  If not, then it was all relatively new and it also means that folks driving a team of horses and a delivery wagons understood the idea of right-of-way and the "you go; I go" principal (if you've ever been in a large parking structure at an event, you know that a lot of folks don't get this idea).

Then there was the whole idea of directing traffic.  Once at major city intersections, there was a cop who directed traffic. He was the stoplight at the intersection.  So maybe when the light made its first appearance before we lost this most beneficial of traffic directors, the officer would point to the light to demonstrate its use.

This contemplation, of course, brought me to the realization of how we know how to use many things.  I never had instruction on how to use a smart phone, but I understand how to use them.  Imagine if you fell into a coma for a number of years.  If it were in the 70's you would marvel at the invention of such things as word processors, calculators, and even hacky-sack, pong and the flair pen.  In the 80's you would miss the arrival of the home computer, video games, Doppler radar, CDs, Windows and the space shuttle.  In the 90's CD's became common place and the internet became the monster information highway, although it actually was invented in the 80's.  Walkmans went the way of the dodo,and digital became the new way to carry information.  Through it all, we learned how to do most of these things with little to no training.  Just as someone coming out of a long coma might be amazed by these gadgets but still they would probably learn to use them.

This brings me back to my original thought: how is it we understand traffic lights?  Is it intuitive and we just get it, or did we need instruction?  Curiouser and curiouser...

A Gritty Sci Fi, Elysium

If you liked the gritty vision of District 9, you will love the look of Elysium.  The movie is pretty straight forward.  Welcome to the two worlds of Elysium and Earth.  Earth, having become over-populated and pollution ridden, has become the home of the vast majority of humans.  The wealthy, or I guess what we would now call the one percenters, have moved off-world.

Director/writer Neill Blomkamp continues his theme of the mistreatment of less fortunate with a very thinly veiled theme about immigration and extreme points of view.  Elysium has it all and not just the wealth and good food and clean water, but it also has astounding medical technology that can cure anything except death. Cancer, radiation poisoning, severe bodily damage, broken bones -- anything can be cured.  On Earth, hospitals are over-crowded, in short supply of even basic medicine and those with more serious disease must simply wait for death unless they can get a "ticket" to Elysium.  Tickets are the illegal means used by the poor to cross the barrier of space in an attempt to at least get the medical wonders of Elysium.  In other words, they seek a better life.

The "world" of Elysium speaks two languages, well-spoken English and French.  They are the beautiful people with pristine bodies.  On Earth, they speak a conglomeration of languages but the primary two seems to be Spanish and vulgar English.  A warning is in order, the English of Earth is loaded with expletives.  They are also often damaged and heavily tattooed. The one exception seems to be the bad guy, Kruger, who speaks Earth English and, I would guess, South African slang and dialect.  I guess this primarily because the actor, Sharlto Copley is from there.


Elysium is where the estates and government reside.  It is controlled by a President and governing council that are apparently established through computer programs.  They also have a minister of defense whose job is to secure the borders.  She believes this should be done by any means which includes killing.  It will protect her children and keep the poor from "showing up at her door."  Minister Delacourt, is played with her usual clean acting by Jodie Foster.

On Earth we meet Max.  Max is played by Matt Damon.  Max is an orphan and paroled car thief.  We are told early on that he has a destiny.  Max is accidentally irradiated and has five days to live.  If he is to survive, he has to get a "ticket" to Elysium.  If you are expecting from the pictures of Damon in the exo-suit to be some super soldier, you  would be wrong.  I cannot explain further without too many spoilers, so I won't.  Damon does a fine job as his less-than-Bourne action hero as he struggles to get to Elysium and save himself and loved ones.

Add to this mix is the thugs or those special citizens of Elysium who do the dirty work for the wealthy.  Kruger, Sharlto Copley, is the psychopathic enforcer barely controlled by Minister Delacourt.  You may remember Copley from District 9.  He is barely recognizable as the everyman hero from that movie as the baddie in Elysium.  Kruger, who lives on Earth but is a citizen of Elysium  is the guy along with his small group of "soldiers" whose job is to enforce the protection of Elysium's borders and do the necessary dirty work for the government.  These special operatives have, of course, been disavowed by the more liberal members of the governing council.  Still Krueger is the basic villain.


Elysium is violent and visually gruesome, and its expletives easily earn its R rating.  Is it as good as Blomkamp's freshmen movie of District 9?  No.  It is fairly predictable, but it holds the attention and is well acted.  It is also not shot in or converted to fad 3D.  Frankly, for most live action movies, 3D is a waste of money.  Its visual look and character stories, although a bit unoriginal, is what makes the movie work.  Its predictable plot, which does have a few twists we don't see coming, is its major drawback.  Overall, though it is a decent flick. I will most likely buy the DVD when the price drops.

Sensationalism...

(from http://www.distilled.net/blog/reputation-monitor/seo-strategies-for-google-news/)

I have been trying to find a different kind of a news station. I've given up trying to find a local Denver Station that isn't either reporting so sensationalized stories that they are beginning to look like Fox or MSNBC.  There is one station left but of late it has taken to reporting those human interest stories with the world's sappiest music.  It's not that I object to human interest stories.  I object to trying to turn them into Hallmark Cards.  Report the news please.

And then it struck me what was wrong.  It's the "We Make A Difference" or "We Get Results" attitude.  One station actually includes the "we get results"  in their advertisements.   And that is the problem.  The job is to report the news.  The job is not to get results. News is not a morality control organization.  News is news.  It bothers me that news stations think they should be getting some sort of results.  No. They should be reporting the news not trying to make it.

I am tired of news organizations who report the sensational remarks of someone like birthers or conspiracy nuts without actually challenging with -- oh, I don't know -- the facts.  I know. I know.  It's more titillating to keep nutcases and lying politicians alive than to deny them air time.  We already have politically biased stations and one news network that doesn't know what it want to do.  What we need a station that reports at 5 and 10 news without results and sappy music.  Maybe PBS or someone on-line could come up with a local news report.

I have to admit, I miss the news.  The boring, old, as honest as it can be where humans are involved, news.