SOAPBOX SCREGMAN...

SNARK SQUARED: Part the First

[This blog was inspired by Lotus's SNARK blog...]

First of all, I don't know what SNARK means. I tried looking it up in the dictionary to see if it was part of the lexicon, but couldn't find it. Anyway...

I wholeheartedly agree with Lotus on this one...

I consider sports commentators to be nothing but feeble-minded wind-bags, capable of stating only the obvious (as if someone watching a football game or a boxing match can't make out what's happening. Isn't it obvious that most sports can be watched just fine without any volume? I make an exception for the radio since it is an auditory medium.)

For those of you who know me, you know I cannot stand sports. These people get paid way too much to play a game. Millions of dollars to play a game... that is absolutely disgusting to me... and some of those players feel that even millions is not enough for their so-called talent. Sure, our educational system is comparable to a Third World's ed system, but let's pump billions of dollars into sports and get rid of the arts while we're at it... But I digress... the topic of where our society's values truly lie is another blog entirely.

Omniscient windbags. Saying nothing of substance or consequence. I never realized how many sportscasters could read minds and tell the future. Do you know how many times I've heard some idiot say: "The quarterback is going to do this" or "He was thinking that... that's why he ran the play the way he did..." Utter nonsense. If these commentators could truly read minds or foretell the future, I'd think they'd be in some other business. Perhaps creating their own religion. My gosh, if they obviously know the outcome of the game... if they know the players so intimately (maybe too intimately)... if they know exactly how a team is going to play, why not put that power to better use, like saving lives around the world, or helping others in need, or creating better laws and public policy? Or are they just bullshitting the viewer?

I'm going to take this a little further... Should the news be exciting? Should it be told like an intense drama? I rarely watch the news, and when I do, there are things about how the news stories are written that annoy the hell out of me. For example, I recall seeing a news story some time ago about a man rescuing another person who was trapped in a burning car. For me, it would have been perfectly fine if that was all that was said. But, the newscaster said things like "...quick thinking..." and "...with only seconds to spare..." I realized that these additional expressions were used to make the story more exciting. Why? Can anyone give me a reason why just being informed about the rescue of a person from a burning car isn't "exciting" or "intense" in and of itself? Why did the writer feel the need to add words such as "quick thinking" and "with only seconds to spare"? Wouldn't it be obvious to whoever's watching?

As a follow-up, I hate when the following question is asked: "What were you thinking when...?" Sure, go ahead and ask the question because, apparently, it seems to be the one question that's on everybody's mind when some intense drama unfolds.

For example:

Question: "What were you thinking as you were running towards the burning car?"

Correct, newsworthy answer: "All I wanted to do was get the man out of the car..."

WELL... DUH!!!

How about an alternative answer, just for the shock value: "I was thinking 'There has got to be a better way to tie my shoelaces so they don't come undone every 5 minutes'"

Question (to a fireman): "What were you thinking when you ran into the burning building?"

Expected newsworthy answer: "Just doing my job... Just had to get in there and get as many people out as I could..."

WELL... DUH!!!

Alternative answer: "I'm tired of this shite... I need a career change. I almost fucking died this last time... Maybe I could work in a bookstore or coffee shop. I'm just tired of this shite..."

Question: "What were you thinking when you realized your son (or daughter) had been kidnapped?"

(Dear God... WHAT AN ASININE QUESTION TO ASK!!)

Expected answer: -No Answer- Grieving parents just sob uncontrollably.

WELL... DUH!!!

Alternative answer: "With big smiles on their faces, the parents, in an upbeat tone, respond in unison "We'll just have another. Kids are a dime a dozen. We're as fertile as rabbits, y'know..."

Newscasters also have the habit of trying to transition smoothly from story to story. Or to try to add their own comment. They really shouldn't because they just end up sounding foolish.

The level of stupidity astounds me...

A Slight Digression...

Lookiloo traffic that delays me getting to my destination annoys me. I wonder who these lookliloos are. If there wasn't some accident to attract lookiloos, wouldn't they be on their way to work, or home, or a coffee shop? In other words, they'd be going about their business. But, oh, look out if there's an accident to ogle at. All of a sudden, that accident becomes important enough to slow down to try and get a good look at.

Another Slight Digression...

Spectators who applaud when someone has been rescued from a burning car or a burning building or a caved-in roof or some other disaster. To me, a burning car or a burning building or a caved-in roof is not a show. It's not a movie where special effects and stunt people were used. It's a horrifying situation, yet spectators feel the need to applaud when a bad situation turns out good in the end. I'm all for the happy ending, but I find the clapping to be highly inappropriate. It's not a show. It's not a play. It's not a movie. Applaud at the end of a show, play, or movie. If I were rescued from a burning building, the LAST thing I want to hear is applause and cheers. In a situation like that, I would not be performing. Don't you get it? I WOULD NOT BE PERFORMING! The happy ending is a good thing, but clapping and cheering at the end is utterly degrading to the situation itself. How dare these spectators turn it into a show. You can clap and cheer when you score 300 in bowling, or when you win that first place trophy, or when you really enjoyed a play or movie... But clapping at the end of something that's not a show or performance? Please... show some respect for the victims... Not everything is a performance. Not everything is entertainment.

AND... What's with some people's curiousity being so strong and morbid that they actually have to stop and watch a building burn? Or a building explode. Or watch paramedics pull out the bloody remains of a car crash victim? Why would anyone want to watch these things?

One Last Digression...

The paparazzi. It's a vicious circle. If there's enough of a demand for something, someone will find a way to fill it. It drives me nuts that there are enough people out there who give a damn about who's fucking who, who's marrying who, who's divorcing who, who's pregnant, who's on drugs, what they wore here and there, where they went over the weekend, etc. I could care less about that kind of stuff. I wonder about people who follow the lives of celebrities so closely. Are their lives so empty? Do they really have nothing better to do than to keep the paparazzi employed?

WHEEEEEW.... Okay, now that I got all that off my chest, I'll just sit quietly (for now). On TV, there's a couple trying to find the perfect home. Right before a commercial break (as if I'm sitting on the edge of my seat), I hear the house hunter ask: "Will they find their perfect home?"

"Dear God", ScregMan asks himself. "Do you think your viewers are that stupid? You know the fucking answer is 'yes'. So why even ask?"