This morning was a momentous occasion in our household. Yes, today, I, little old me, was able to tell my hubby something he didn’t know about plumbing! Sirens went off, fireworks blasted skywards and I did the dance of joy.
What I told him is irrelevant, it was the fact that for once in our years of marriage I held the answer to a household problem and he for once could be stumped. I think I’ve mentioned before that hubby is a Baker, but really should be a lecturer specializing in everything from quantum physics to the umpteen uses of ear-buds.
Over the years he has bored me to death with responses to my seemingly simple questions, to the extent I have now developed a pose that tells him I’m really not interested and I’ve stopped listening. I put one hand on a hip, tilt my head to the left, raise my eyebrows, close one eye and sigh. If that doesn’t work, I remain in the pose but raise my hand, look him directly in the eye and tell him straight “I’m not interested, too much detail.” If he’s really on a role, and neither of these tactics have worked , I start la la laaaaaaing at the top of my voice.
Now reading back on what I’ve just said, I sound like a right old cow! And even if I do say so myself, I’m not…well at least that’s what I told myself this morning.
So this go me thinking about choosing words, particularly in the news media, and the need to sensationalize to pull readers/viewers/listeners in. Without a doubt, the golden rule of all media is to sensationalize, whether it be the serious news sites, or the tabloids. And let’s be honest here, most of us would be drawn to “Man savaged by dog” as opposed to “Man encounters dog”. The DailyMail web site is brilliant at sensationalizing, so much so that every day they are the first website I hit as soon as my browser is open. I read the stories, tell myself they are a load of cods-wallop, vow never to go back to read such drivel, only to find myself back there several times a day looking for my Fix.
Two stories really caught my eye this week. One was about a man savaged by a dog. I forget the headline now – it was good though – but it referred to a man savagely attacked by a dog, in his garden, while sunbathing. The man that is, not the dog. Completely outraged, I hit the enter button and began reading. About half way through I realized I’d been conned again. And by the end of it I was about ready to send off a stinging email to the editor for employing such idiotic and poor journalists. In a nut shell the dog dashed up to the man, took his leg in his mouth and did nothing. The savaged-man went to hospital and was released a short time later after requiring no treatment whatsoever. He did of course lay a charge against the owner of the dog, and the case has gone to court. I ask you, SAVAGED?!
The second story refers to the bomber in Sweden. I read here that the Bomber comes from a well-know terrorist hotspot…Luton. Are they really serious? Have any of you even heard of Luton? For the record Luton can be found in south-east of the UK in the county of Bedfordshire. And how do I know that,? Well my sister has a restaurant there, my parents live not too far away, and they have a terrible football team. But admittedly I haven’t lived in the UK for umpteen years, so I will give the reporter the benefit of the doubt and tally up how many terrorists have come from there. Now let’s see, gosh, do I have enough fingers to count with? Yes, yes I do, but let me do a quick recount. Final answer = 1. Holy macaroni, 1. The residents of Luton must be distraught.