Blog no.23 … What’s the bloody point?
I’m afraid this blog has been poorly written, is grammatically lacklustre and factually wayward in key areas, this is because I’m working fast so that my thoughts will remain fresh and vital when they enter your brainholes. We’re living in an instant world and I’m prepared to sacrifice substance to be part of it. If I was an intellectual like Robert Elms or Paul Morley I’d probably dub this style ‘punk blogging’, and then look all pleased with myself but I’m not so I won’t.
In today’s newspapers (I don’t know exactly how many, I don’t have time for research anymore, but at least three) they gave the result of last night’s football as: Manchester United L Sunderland L … to fans of linear algebra that’s a draw, but it’s also newspaper shorthand for ‘late’, ergo: We don’t know what happened because it ran late and we didn’t have time to witness the conclusion.
So, the journalist doesn’t know what happened in the thing he’s been sent to write about because he has a deadline to file his copy describing the thing he’s been sent to write about, but he can’t adequately describe the thing he’s been sent to write about because he doesn’t know what happened, he doesn’t know what happened because etc etc etc … it’s a circular argument, or a circular something or other, no time for wording things properly now.
There’s even entire reports pondering both possible outcomes, what’s the bloody point? We already know the outcome anyway, we know everything, INSTANTLY! The Evening Standard has similar problems when Andy Murray is half way through a game at Wimbledon and they have to submit a report, but they can’t so they print the latest score, a paragraph about Cliff Richard and the rest of the page gets taken up by a huge full length photo of a sweaty Scotsman trying to retrieve his under-crackers from his sphincter.
Newspapers are doomed aren’t they? The very least we should expect from a newspaper is that it can inform us with some degree of accuracy as to what happened yesterday, if it can’t even do that, what’s the bloody point?
As for my point, I don’t exactly know what that is either just yet but no matter, I’ll photoshop it in later, but here’s some anecdotal evidence to support whatever it might be …
The olden days – when I was about 13, the batteries had gone in my transistor radio so I had no way of knowing how my team were doing in their midweek away fixture at Hereford, you could only access niche information like that on a gadget called ‘Ceefax’ in those days, but we were poor and couldn’t afford such luxury trinkets, we needed newspapers, imagine that. The following morning I bought one at Hounslow West tube and finally discovered the result, Hereford 1 Brentford 1. Well worth the 10 hour wait.
The modern world – Last Saturday evening I was multi-tasking, I had Pointless on the big TV (volume down), Liverpool v Villa on my i-pad (volume up) and Twitter open on my mobile, then about 25 minutes in to the goalless match I’m looking at Tweets exclaiming: “GOAL!!! VILLA 1-0” … eh??? … then of course seconds later on my screen Villa score. Is my live feed of the game on a slight delay? or has news now become so instantaneous that we literally, yes LITERALLY know what’s happened before it’s actually happened?
I haven’t done any research but It’s definitely the second one, thanks to disgustingly fat broadband frequencies tearing new arseholes in the O-zone layer we are now living 10 seconds into the future, I know what you’re thinking, you’re thinking this poses a multitude of philosophical and existential quandaries such as: What then is history? Has time’s curve straightened or arced further? Is the present now the past? Is anything actually ‘live’ anymore? and most pressingly, what’s the bloody point of newspapers?
Here’s today’s actual report from last night’s big game in The London Metro …