But suddenly it's so clear to me, that I'd asked her to see what she would never see.

Here's the best reaction I've seen so far about the major pop star who died recently and has dominated the news in such a comprehensive manner but who shall otherwise remain nameless because you all know who I'm taking about.


Hours and hours and hours and hours of meaningless babble, blather and balderdash on FOUR cable news stations. Yeeeccchhhh!

I read an interesting justification for the saturation coverage on a BBC editor's blog. You can read it yourself at http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/ - just scroll down to the second post. I notice she's had over 100 comments on this post - clearly it's an issue with a lot of people. I've read a few of the comments and they seem to follow a similar theme - sure cover the story for a start but what is the point of days and days of coverage after the whole world knows he's dead. I can understand why the BBC did so - everyone else was! But really - we expect more from the BBC - the only quality news gatherer on the television.

I'm thinking of reinstating my ban on television news. We get four news channels - Skynews, CNN, Fox, BBC plus TV1 and TV3 news hours of the terrestrial variety. Fox is the worst by far - all gloss/glamour and zero substance (kandy floss has more nourishment!). Sky is next - all brash headlines, extreme close-ups and gore galore. CNN is passable most of the time but not very comprehensive - obviously a bias towards US coverage. The BBC, therefore, stands alone. When even they stoop to blanket coverage of sensational events, we are in serious trouble!

Love and peace - W