Wednesday, February 13, 2008

News Media talking crap, no suprise there

Its just about every day that I read something about a news organisation publishing or broadcasting a pile of stinking crap - usually in that faux "and in other news..." tone. And it seems today is no exception. Straight from the anals (sic) of English news comes the wonderful story of how everyone who lived in the dark ages were better off than those of us now due to our diet.

Yes, apparently if we were wallowing in the mud, being bled by the so called physicians of the time, and competing with the rats in the World Cup of disease spreading, but still getting your meat and 3 veg, it was all roses.

Big thumbs up to the Telegraph for filling another paperwebsite with crap to make up the page count.
It says that we have traded the pox, the plague and a healthy diet for heart disease, diabetes and burgers - and we're worse off for it. The main point of the article is some waffle about the average bro had a better mix of fruit, veg, grains and meat that todays keyboard pusher who subsists on a diet of Burger King, KFC and butter chicken.

I think that it fails to realise that the average lifespan of someone in Tudor times was 20 - 30 years, whereas now (in most developed countries) we can expect at least 65 - 70. It sounds like the person who did the study, a Dr Roger Henderson, may simply have been doing a diet comparison. The problem is the article makes him sound like some nutty nutritionist advocating returning to a medieval existence to save ourselves from heart disease and diabetes. Hmmm - surely the advances in medicine or better social education on health would be easier and more cost effecvtive than time travel?

Whatever - I get more pissed about the news organisation pushing this crap. Who could call themselves "Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website" and print this shit? Mind you, the headlines in the Science section are a bit on the nose as well. "To escape flu - move to the country" - more waffle about the birdflu pandemic that wasnt. If you move the the country, you are less likely to catch the flu. Well shit - really? Why would that be I wonder - maybe (and I'm going out on a limb here) because theres less people in the country so virus spread would be slower than in a city? Also, if everyone moved to the country to avoid catching the flu, wouldnt the city then be empty, therefore logically be the best place to be? TO ESCAPE FLU, TELL EVERYONE TO GO TO COUNTRY, BUT REALLY STAY HOME. Ah, but what if everyone thinks like that! Classic double bluff - tell everyone your going, fake staying behind, then go anyway! Ha - take that flu ridden neighbours!

Oh well - back to Call of Duty 4 - quality game that!

No comments: