As you would expect, such a horrific incident generates massive amounts of discussion, something I believe to be one of the best parts of living in a democracy. But since the discussion exists, there has to be some point that marks the highest levels of that discussion and some point that marks the lowest... and I think we've found the lowest:
Luckily the article wastes no time getting to the heart of its response. I'll go ahead and quote the first part here.
Because he's just not.So it starts with that opening salvo, but any journalist worth his or her salt knows the importance of backing up a claim. The article goes on:
When James Holmes, the 24-year-old suspect in the Dark Knight Rises theater shooting is arraigned this morning in Colorado, his hair may still be wildly dyed, and allusions to the Joker, the Batman villain with which Holmes reportedly aligned himself, may continue to be made.
But comic-book movie fans like Jim Littler will know better
"Insane or not, obviously he's not the Joker," says Littler, founder of the fandom-news site ComicBookMovie.com, "and it's silly to even entertain this lunatic's perverse fantasy."It is silly, Mr. Littler. I agree with you completely, and while we could stop and ask if the article quoting you is doing the very thing you rightly stated as silly, I'd rather keep going, which means citing the part where the late Heath Ledger's father adds to the slam dunk of the "Because he's just not" opening salvo.
We can't blame Heath or the character…It's [the Joker] fictious."Indeed. Okay, so far we have a guy who owns a comic book related URL and Heath Ledger's Dad on record, but if I were editing this E! Online article, I'd want one more random URL owner just to bulletproof the piece.
From the Batman comic to the Christopher Nolan Batman movies, the overriding message, says Heidi MacDonald, editor-in-chief of the comic-news blog The Beat, is that personal tragedy can spur a fight for nothing less than "the greater good."
"I'm sure it is really dismaying for fans and readers that this message has been coopted, for a bit, by a real-life wacko," MacDonald says.Since there really isn't much more to add, I'm just going to slow clap this shit:
Obviously I don't have anything personal against the author or the people quoted in the article, but let's be honest, there's no reason for this article to exist. It perfectly illustrates the difference between continuing a discussion and simply prolonging it.
Twenty-four hour news networks were the worst things to happen to news in a long time, but they didn't hold the title for very long. I think the blessing and curse of online news sources do more damage to the discourse when the final count is tallied. E! News Online already covers fluffy nonsense like this headline -
- so I imagine it must be tough to fight for our limited time-wasting headline clicks when there's real news about. So a hastily assembled article goes up just to keep the content fresh. That's fine when the content covers Bieber's Twitter account, but when the content addresses Real News like the shooting in Aurora, it feels a touch more insulting.
I don't think there's a person out there who would give James Holmes' "I'm Joker" comment any degree of weight. But The E! Online article has to, if even just for a moment, in order for the article to exist. The article includes quotes from bloggers as primary sources to help peel back the layers of this non-existant topic. And, of course, the article starts off with that total turd of an opening, "Because he's just not."
In the end, it's a reminder that news on the web is just one way to fill in the spaces on a web page not covered in ads. Porn is another, and honestly, it's probably a better use of the space than empty, half-assed articles like the one that kicked off this whole thing.
It begs the question, if the original article is an empty waste of time, what does that make my post exploring said article?
Ah blogs... who knew that passing gas could take the shape of words?
No comments:
Post a Comment