Diamond for the golden throat,
topaz a shape of swan,
emerald and ruby grace
all the hand of woman.
See how I decorate my property
to show others of my wealth,
I will parade her, show how I made her,
an advertisement of myself.
The power I command glitters there on her hand
around her wrist platinum and
amethyst.
This what I own, and sits next to my throne,
a thing,
I parade before kings,
golden chairs and silver tables shining in my halls
but she who glistens with my wealth--
my greatest possession of all.
Sparkling jewels in red and sapphire blue
the next one... could it be you?
See how I decorate my property
with things that catch the eye,
flesh will rot, blood dry way,
but these jewels will never die.
See how I decorate my property,
it speaks of the power within me, and
of her slavery.
Wednesday 30 April 2014
Monday 14 April 2014
Network TV Demise finis.
Speaking about wasting time in NewsTV : the weather.
The immense amount of time spent on the weather
in news broadcasts is an embarrassment to the editorial
staff's work ethic. We all understand the weather is not an exact science as conditions can change rapidly due to unforeseen weather patterns. In any case, most people have a weather app on their phone or computer. My Mac Book
Pro has the same thing as on most phones. This gives me an as reliable seven day forecast. It is as correct as the TV weather, but possibly more so. It is current and not dependent on a 9am, 12noon, 6pm, or 11pm time slot.
Why would I or anyone sit through someone ingratiatingly smiling, however personably, who tells me what I can see in seconds, for ten to fifteen minutes? Why?
I was discussing this with a friend of mine and she said:
"Weather is cheap". I suppose that is correct if one compares the cost to real journalism.
Next: three top stories. How is it all the local broadcasts and national broadcasts, more or less, have the same top three stories? How do they seem to pick the same three top stories every night? And while on this topic of NewsTV repetition, is there any reason we need so many networks? So many networks showing the same top three stories every night? If I go to Google news I pick the top 3, 4, 5, or 10 stories. Why should we have so many networks American and Canadian showing the same identical topic? Is this not a dreadful waste of our resources?
Finally I will point out my observation, which is by no means the last thing wrong with NewsTV, in regard to the very serious responsibility it must claim for polarization.
The intellectual oil slick depth of reporting suggests there is a plus side and a negative side, a conservative side and a liberal side, a white side and a black side. This is not an accurate portrayal of human contemporary life. Life exists in infinite shades of grey. There is not merely management's side and the union's side. This is the understanding of cretins. However it is a cheap and easy way to report the news if one is lazy.
You know me I am not one to complain, so that is enough about NewsTV. About television in general, infotainmentTV or simply network TV- they used to call
television the "vast wasteland", those pundits never saw television in 2017. The current level of programing, and
unreality TV, is really plumbing the most base and vulgar of humanity's activities, personalities and attitudes.
Unreality programs seem to promote the most venal and immature behaviour and consequently set it as some kind of standard. It should NOT be the standard for human behaviour -- we must set higher goals higher aspirations
than we see portrayed on current programming.
From what I can observe it is likely networks themselves that will fall. Not only for the execrable standards of today's TV but in addition for the desperate bid for advertising as viewership falls. Netflicks and Xfinity await.
The final guillotine stroke for networks, if you will allow a little literal hyperbole is:
In Program Ads. Also known as banner ads, those pesky annoying things at the bottom of your screen when your actual program is on air. This is the death knell for television networks.
How come? No one I talk to has been able to explain why
we must pay to watch commercials.
Most of you do not remember but when we first got TV in the 50s we had to have an antenna. It made perfect sense, then, that we got TV "free" because we had to endure noxious and sometimes creatively amusing advertising to see our favorite programs. So far so good.
When cable arrived we now had to pay to receive television broadcasts and advertising. We literally pay to watch advertising. Since the pvr arrived networks realized
viewers were fast forwarding through the ads, natch, and now they have decided to annoy the hell out of the viewer
by putting in distracting visuals, banners ads for the networks own shows and finally for products actually during the program.
Tetley tea?
I will never buy your fine product for putting in an ad in my favorite program- Elementary, though it is flagging and losing focus in its late third season.
Bong! -that's the death knell going off. This execrable practice of banner ads will accelerate the end of networks finally and irrevocably.
I usually find I enjoy a program very late. For instance I never liked Seinfeld until it was over, then in reruns I "got" it. They are all horrible, if hilarious, self centered people. Just awful people, like Patsy and Edina. So funny.
So when the Mentalist came on I missed many of the first
episodes. I made my first ever purchase of a TV series.
Mentalist first season then Fringe. I received the first season of Elementary for xmas. I was astounded totally when the brilliant actor Jonny Lee Miller's character used the word contretemps on television. Then the brilliant actor Lucy Lui's character did not ask what it meant or dumb something down for the audience. Look it up! These programs are part of the smart is sexy trend.
Person of Interest was brilliant and very lamented.
Yeah I enjoyed Downton Abbey too. But I miss Sibohan Finneran. What an amazing actor she is.
What a joy to watch TV programs on DVD! No ads at all, just a black screen where you knew the commercial break came. The way the "art" of television should be enjoyed.
In fact commercials have destroyed the artistic aesthetic of television drama. Most internet users won't be able to remember but TV started out, at least, having the same aesthetic integrity as theater and cinema.
So in the networks desire to promote themselves or their sponsors in banner ads they are committing suicide.
Consumers get tired of switching to new technologies not to mention the costs involved. This fact is preventing the wholesale lemming rush to Netflicks etc. HD, I observe,
as a visual delivery system is magnificent. Particularly for sports or nature.
Now they want you to upgrade to UHD, but there is very little on.
Ironic, that at a time when the delivery system for video
product has been refined to unprecedented picture quality the content has become increasingly dismal and unpalatable.
What is the future for network news and infotainment?
Perhaps the few remaining networks will become like radio did when TV kicked it in the arse. Public radio, in any case, has much more quality than TV presently.
Lately in my city networks have been having "support community television" open house days. This last ditch effort is akin to a weak Luddite attempt to stay the hands of progress.
No mechanical looms !!!!
Sad really, but as I say, I wish every one well, but we simply do not spin cloth with old spinning wheels any more---- new technology took over.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
The immense amount of time spent on the weather
in news broadcasts is an embarrassment to the editorial
staff's work ethic. We all understand the weather is not an exact science as conditions can change rapidly due to unforeseen weather patterns. In any case, most people have a weather app on their phone or computer. My Mac Book
Pro has the same thing as on most phones. This gives me an as reliable seven day forecast. It is as correct as the TV weather, but possibly more so. It is current and not dependent on a 9am, 12noon, 6pm, or 11pm time slot.
Why would I or anyone sit through someone ingratiatingly smiling, however personably, who tells me what I can see in seconds, for ten to fifteen minutes? Why?
I was discussing this with a friend of mine and she said:
"Weather is cheap". I suppose that is correct if one compares the cost to real journalism.
Next: three top stories. How is it all the local broadcasts and national broadcasts, more or less, have the same top three stories? How do they seem to pick the same three top stories every night? And while on this topic of NewsTV repetition, is there any reason we need so many networks? So many networks showing the same top three stories every night? If I go to Google news I pick the top 3, 4, 5, or 10 stories. Why should we have so many networks American and Canadian showing the same identical topic? Is this not a dreadful waste of our resources?
Finally I will point out my observation, which is by no means the last thing wrong with NewsTV, in regard to the very serious responsibility it must claim for polarization.
The intellectual oil slick depth of reporting suggests there is a plus side and a negative side, a conservative side and a liberal side, a white side and a black side. This is not an accurate portrayal of human contemporary life. Life exists in infinite shades of grey. There is not merely management's side and the union's side. This is the understanding of cretins. However it is a cheap and easy way to report the news if one is lazy.
You know me I am not one to complain, so that is enough about NewsTV. About television in general, infotainmentTV or simply network TV- they used to call
television the "vast wasteland", those pundits never saw television in 2017. The current level of programing, and
unreality TV, is really plumbing the most base and vulgar of humanity's activities, personalities and attitudes.
Unreality programs seem to promote the most venal and immature behaviour and consequently set it as some kind of standard. It should NOT be the standard for human behaviour -- we must set higher goals higher aspirations
than we see portrayed on current programming.
From what I can observe it is likely networks themselves that will fall. Not only for the execrable standards of today's TV but in addition for the desperate bid for advertising as viewership falls. Netflicks and Xfinity await.
The final guillotine stroke for networks, if you will allow a little literal hyperbole is:
In Program Ads. Also known as banner ads, those pesky annoying things at the bottom of your screen when your actual program is on air. This is the death knell for television networks.
How come? No one I talk to has been able to explain why
we must pay to watch commercials.
Most of you do not remember but when we first got TV in the 50s we had to have an antenna. It made perfect sense, then, that we got TV "free" because we had to endure noxious and sometimes creatively amusing advertising to see our favorite programs. So far so good.
When cable arrived we now had to pay to receive television broadcasts and advertising. We literally pay to watch advertising. Since the pvr arrived networks realized
viewers were fast forwarding through the ads, natch, and now they have decided to annoy the hell out of the viewer
by putting in distracting visuals, banners ads for the networks own shows and finally for products actually during the program.
Tetley tea?
I will never buy your fine product for putting in an ad in my favorite program- Elementary, though it is flagging and losing focus in its late third season.
Bong! -that's the death knell going off. This execrable practice of banner ads will accelerate the end of networks finally and irrevocably.
I usually find I enjoy a program very late. For instance I never liked Seinfeld until it was over, then in reruns I "got" it. They are all horrible, if hilarious, self centered people. Just awful people, like Patsy and Edina. So funny.
So when the Mentalist came on I missed many of the first
episodes. I made my first ever purchase of a TV series.
Mentalist first season then Fringe. I received the first season of Elementary for xmas. I was astounded totally when the brilliant actor Jonny Lee Miller's character used the word contretemps on television. Then the brilliant actor Lucy Lui's character did not ask what it meant or dumb something down for the audience. Look it up! These programs are part of the smart is sexy trend.
Person of Interest was brilliant and very lamented.
Yeah I enjoyed Downton Abbey too. But I miss Sibohan Finneran. What an amazing actor she is.
What a joy to watch TV programs on DVD! No ads at all, just a black screen where you knew the commercial break came. The way the "art" of television should be enjoyed.
In fact commercials have destroyed the artistic aesthetic of television drama. Most internet users won't be able to remember but TV started out, at least, having the same aesthetic integrity as theater and cinema.
So in the networks desire to promote themselves or their sponsors in banner ads they are committing suicide.
Consumers get tired of switching to new technologies not to mention the costs involved. This fact is preventing the wholesale lemming rush to Netflicks etc. HD, I observe,
as a visual delivery system is magnificent. Particularly for sports or nature.
Now they want you to upgrade to UHD, but there is very little on.
Ironic, that at a time when the delivery system for video
product has been refined to unprecedented picture quality the content has become increasingly dismal and unpalatable.
What is the future for network news and infotainment?
Perhaps the few remaining networks will become like radio did when TV kicked it in the arse. Public radio, in any case, has much more quality than TV presently.
Lately in my city networks have been having "support community television" open house days. This last ditch effort is akin to a weak Luddite attempt to stay the hands of progress.
No mechanical looms !!!!
Sad really, but as I say, I wish every one well, but we simply do not spin cloth with old spinning wheels any more---- new technology took over.
At least, that is from what I can observe.
Monday 7 April 2014
NetworkTV Demise cont.
Now for NewsTV.
The TV news is a format for delivery of info product that has not changed much since its inception.
Generally it has the depth of an oil slick.
Irene Adler, a character in Sherlock, the brilliant British production, said " Smart is the new sexy."
So true. NewsTV has not exactly jumped on that
"smarting up" bandwagon. They certainly have established their credibility in the dumbing down department, however that style is now passe.
What is NewsTV doing wrong, then. From what I can observe... nearly everything. We must think of information as data bits. If you read a data bit on the internet you do not go over it 4, 5, or 6 times. You already read it once, that usually is enough.
NewsTV editors and writers have not quite grasped
this concept.
As an internet user one clicks on a link, reads that, then goes on to the next thing. If we want more info bits aka data we shove key words into Google and research more, as is our wish.
NewsTV cannot provide this level of service. Is that their fault? Certainly not! They are old media.... snail news.
This level of user ease is not embedded in their structure.
The list of news stories on Google or BBC is a page long or longer. The user chooses what product they want to consume-- not the TV editor's or writer's choice.
This is called "the empowerment of the user".
When telephone answering machines were introduced we had "the empowerment of the called". So there are precedents in regard to socio-technological changes.
How is NewsTV different from the internet? Well, when the news is about to come on, after any other program, there is often a network shill ad for the upcoming news broadcast.
In the previous hour time slot.
The three top stories of the day are teased.
That's once you have heard, read or seen them.
Keep track.
Next the actual news program comes on and guess what?
These three are mentioned again.
"Our top stories today! "
Then they are often mentioned again when the anchor, however personable and charming [and they are!] starts talking to introduce each of the three stories.
That's three times we have been party to three info bits repeated three times. Boring!
Now the video often will go from the anchor to a reporter
inexplicably standing by at the scene of the crime, disaster or whatever, where in most cases the action has completely evaporated, then the reporter repeats exactly what the viewer has heard, or seen three times already
by the intros. May I repeat: Age of the Internet!
That is four times now, boring boring I'm just snoring.
It seems as if the NewsTV staff are saying; " You, my dear viewer, are an imbecile."
What next? Well, we will often go to a "real person" who will more or less repeat what has already been said. Or to an "expert" who will also confirm the info bit being stated.
The expert is an interesting addition. The video editor will accompany her report with video of the expert walking down the hall outside his office, walking along the street towards her office or working on a laptop in the office.
This "video" is completely staged and rather embarrassing. It is there to give the voice over time to introduce them. Completely fake. I call it dead video,
or in other words radio.
The Internet does not find it necessary to infuse dead time into the users experience. Consequently our time is used more efficiently on Google news et al.
Our time is running out, as you are well aware. Ticking of the clock. Time passes. What I am referring to here is
we are mortal, and the most judicious use of our time is an imperative, don't you think?
That is if you actually value life.
These are, as I declare in my philosophy, only my observations, you will have to tell if they resonate with you.
I grew up on TV, but young people today have the Internet. They simply will not waste their time on NewsTV.
Putting it another way....would a young girl raised on the Internet go back and read the identical information 5 or 6 times? What would be the profit in that?
As Camille Paglia says we are some kind of an ADD society now-- on to the next thing fast.
Rather than wasting our time with endless repetition we could be on to Japan wood block prints: the pictures of the floating world, Expressionist German Art, Hubble and Keppler's new galactic photographs, car design, or you name it.
Can I have been the only person to notice these critiques?
Of course not. When a person gets bad customer service in a store they usually do not tell the owner they never go back.
Why is there so little of these critiques expressed on the TV medium itself?
The television media would not willingly air information
that exposed its own diminishment.
Falling viewership means less justification for high salaries
of anchors, producers, directors, editors, sound crew, and all the other essential TV crew.
It must be no comfort to these individuals to have participated in their own employment's demise by their reluctance to amend program structure in response to technological advancements.
It is another case of you have seen the enemy and it is you.
In fact, one might observe, that there is a distinct unconfirmed possibility that the reason NewsTV/SnailTV is so superficial is that being the primary, [now ex-primary] news source makes one lazy. I, for one, could not say.
Chopper One? Don't bother if is just an expensive
excuse to insert an in program add.
I've heard news reporting is quite expensive, but that is no reason to let a dearth of info product occur on NewsTV.
I refer to the "coming ups". A great deal of the news program is telling what will come up after what they euphemistically call " the break", which you know means ads. The "what we're working ons".
Forget them, already.
I wish all workers well. Does Snail TV/NewsTV think we are blockheads? Oh. Perhaps they do.
What if the user went to Yahoo news and they said the item you want will be coming up in 20 minutes time
watch these ads and other unrelated info until that time?
Er....no. No. The user in the internet age would be on to another site or story....immediately!
They should be or else they are wasting their time.
Few people are going to wait to hear news for instance in the latter part of the program or more deviously after many many commercials. These comings up are time killers, so another few minutes of the broadcast is cheap. Do the editors and writers think they are cheap? Cheaper than providing hard news? That is: they take up time and cost nothing but the graphic work? The sub textual message: news is about wasting time?
I am asking. These are my observations, I make no claim to them being hard reality. You will have to make you own mind up about this.
More on this subject next post. Cheers.
The TV news is a format for delivery of info product that has not changed much since its inception.
Generally it has the depth of an oil slick.
Irene Adler, a character in Sherlock, the brilliant British production, said " Smart is the new sexy."
So true. NewsTV has not exactly jumped on that
"smarting up" bandwagon. They certainly have established their credibility in the dumbing down department, however that style is now passe.
What is NewsTV doing wrong, then. From what I can observe... nearly everything. We must think of information as data bits. If you read a data bit on the internet you do not go over it 4, 5, or 6 times. You already read it once, that usually is enough.
NewsTV editors and writers have not quite grasped
this concept.
As an internet user one clicks on a link, reads that, then goes on to the next thing. If we want more info bits aka data we shove key words into Google and research more, as is our wish.
NewsTV cannot provide this level of service. Is that their fault? Certainly not! They are old media.... snail news.
This level of user ease is not embedded in their structure.
The list of news stories on Google or BBC is a page long or longer. The user chooses what product they want to consume-- not the TV editor's or writer's choice.
This is called "the empowerment of the user".
When telephone answering machines were introduced we had "the empowerment of the called". So there are precedents in regard to socio-technological changes.
How is NewsTV different from the internet? Well, when the news is about to come on, after any other program, there is often a network shill ad for the upcoming news broadcast.
In the previous hour time slot.
The three top stories of the day are teased.
That's once you have heard, read or seen them.
Keep track.
Next the actual news program comes on and guess what?
These three are mentioned again.
"Our top stories today! "
Then they are often mentioned again when the anchor, however personable and charming [and they are!] starts talking to introduce each of the three stories.
That's three times we have been party to three info bits repeated three times. Boring!
Now the video often will go from the anchor to a reporter
inexplicably standing by at the scene of the crime, disaster or whatever, where in most cases the action has completely evaporated, then the reporter repeats exactly what the viewer has heard, or seen three times already
by the intros. May I repeat: Age of the Internet!
That is four times now, boring boring I'm just snoring.
It seems as if the NewsTV staff are saying; " You, my dear viewer, are an imbecile."
What next? Well, we will often go to a "real person" who will more or less repeat what has already been said. Or to an "expert" who will also confirm the info bit being stated.
The expert is an interesting addition. The video editor will accompany her report with video of the expert walking down the hall outside his office, walking along the street towards her office or working on a laptop in the office.
This "video" is completely staged and rather embarrassing. It is there to give the voice over time to introduce them. Completely fake. I call it dead video,
or in other words radio.
The Internet does not find it necessary to infuse dead time into the users experience. Consequently our time is used more efficiently on Google news et al.
Our time is running out, as you are well aware. Ticking of the clock. Time passes. What I am referring to here is
we are mortal, and the most judicious use of our time is an imperative, don't you think?
That is if you actually value life.
These are, as I declare in my philosophy, only my observations, you will have to tell if they resonate with you.
I grew up on TV, but young people today have the Internet. They simply will not waste their time on NewsTV.
Putting it another way....would a young girl raised on the Internet go back and read the identical information 5 or 6 times? What would be the profit in that?
As Camille Paglia says we are some kind of an ADD society now-- on to the next thing fast.
Rather than wasting our time with endless repetition we could be on to Japan wood block prints: the pictures of the floating world, Expressionist German Art, Hubble and Keppler's new galactic photographs, car design, or you name it.
Can I have been the only person to notice these critiques?
Of course not. When a person gets bad customer service in a store they usually do not tell the owner they never go back.
Why is there so little of these critiques expressed on the TV medium itself?
The television media would not willingly air information
that exposed its own diminishment.
Falling viewership means less justification for high salaries
of anchors, producers, directors, editors, sound crew, and all the other essential TV crew.
It must be no comfort to these individuals to have participated in their own employment's demise by their reluctance to amend program structure in response to technological advancements.
It is another case of you have seen the enemy and it is you.
In fact, one might observe, that there is a distinct unconfirmed possibility that the reason NewsTV/SnailTV is so superficial is that being the primary, [now ex-primary] news source makes one lazy. I, for one, could not say.
Chopper One? Don't bother if is just an expensive
excuse to insert an in program add.
I've heard news reporting is quite expensive, but that is no reason to let a dearth of info product occur on NewsTV.
I refer to the "coming ups". A great deal of the news program is telling what will come up after what they euphemistically call " the break", which you know means ads. The "what we're working ons".
Forget them, already.
I wish all workers well. Does Snail TV/NewsTV think we are blockheads? Oh. Perhaps they do.
What if the user went to Yahoo news and they said the item you want will be coming up in 20 minutes time
watch these ads and other unrelated info until that time?
Er....no. No. The user in the internet age would be on to another site or story....immediately!
They should be or else they are wasting their time.
Few people are going to wait to hear news for instance in the latter part of the program or more deviously after many many commercials. These comings up are time killers, so another few minutes of the broadcast is cheap. Do the editors and writers think they are cheap? Cheaper than providing hard news? That is: they take up time and cost nothing but the graphic work? The sub textual message: news is about wasting time?
I am asking. These are my observations, I make no claim to them being hard reality. You will have to make you own mind up about this.
More on this subject next post. Cheers.
Network TV Complicit in its own Demise
We are witness to the demise, or at the very least a severe transfiguration of an information medium that has been around since the 1950's, to wit : television.
The progression of this demise has been strangely, even mysteriously, unreported by the medium itself. We will examine the reasons for both these facts.
The signs of TV's pending demise or transformation are there if one examines closely. For the purposes of this article first we will examine NewsTV then infotainmentTV.
I have no ax to grind with employees of television news.
I hope everyone keeps their jobs, and their pay scale.
I know the anxiety of the fear of being unemployed. I sympathize, I really do. However......
You know me I don't like to complain.
Seriously, one has to ask: What age is it we live in right now?
The internet age.
As a boomer I have been witness to the evolution of NewsTV into the Snail news.
Television news editors and writers were quick to incorporate the phrase "snail mail", when referring to the postal service in the broadcasts, coincidentally at a time when both postal services of of the two nations of NorthAm were drastically improving their efficiency.
Ironic that they improved their services at a time when their product diminished....another example of the effect of the internet.
I dare say NewsTV will not be using the term Snail news any time soon. The reason for the non reporting of the NewsTV demise suddenly becomes less mysterious. They control the transmission of news, consequently they are reticent to report their reduction in viewership.
This is absolutely natural, all species are self preserving.
NewsTV editors should receive no condemnation on this account.
In life we can identify factors that cause our problems.
One category~~ things we do ourselves and another~~
things we have no control over.
NewsTV has no control over the fact that social media and the internet are taking away potential viewers.
So did TV from Radio.
NewsTV workers are good people and the anchors personable, and I really hope they can keep their jobs and and pay scales.
From what I can observe viewership must be down. This fact is not so curiously not reported much on NewsTV.
Still, it is not NewsTV department's fault that when
I browse my favorite news sites, Google News and BBC World News, and some others, that I am
informed of practically 195% of anything SnailNewsTV
has to offer---and quicker.
Social media like twitter is reducing these news
" info to user bits" even further.
More in next post I have to get something to eat.
The progression of this demise has been strangely, even mysteriously, unreported by the medium itself. We will examine the reasons for both these facts.
The signs of TV's pending demise or transformation are there if one examines closely. For the purposes of this article first we will examine NewsTV then infotainmentTV.
I have no ax to grind with employees of television news.
I hope everyone keeps their jobs, and their pay scale.
I know the anxiety of the fear of being unemployed. I sympathize, I really do. However......
You know me I don't like to complain.
Seriously, one has to ask: What age is it we live in right now?
The internet age.
As a boomer I have been witness to the evolution of NewsTV into the Snail news.
Television news editors and writers were quick to incorporate the phrase "snail mail", when referring to the postal service in the broadcasts, coincidentally at a time when both postal services of of the two nations of NorthAm were drastically improving their efficiency.
Ironic that they improved their services at a time when their product diminished....another example of the effect of the internet.
I dare say NewsTV will not be using the term Snail news any time soon. The reason for the non reporting of the NewsTV demise suddenly becomes less mysterious. They control the transmission of news, consequently they are reticent to report their reduction in viewership.
This is absolutely natural, all species are self preserving.
NewsTV editors should receive no condemnation on this account.
In life we can identify factors that cause our problems.
One category~~ things we do ourselves and another~~
things we have no control over.
NewsTV has no control over the fact that social media and the internet are taking away potential viewers.
So did TV from Radio.
NewsTV workers are good people and the anchors personable, and I really hope they can keep their jobs and and pay scales.
From what I can observe viewership must be down. This fact is not so curiously not reported much on NewsTV.
Still, it is not NewsTV department's fault that when
I browse my favorite news sites, Google News and BBC World News, and some others, that I am
informed of practically 195% of anything SnailNewsTV
has to offer---and quicker.
Social media like twitter is reducing these news
" info to user bits" even further.
More in next post I have to get something to eat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)