I don’t know if
the problem is with us, or with them.
Every day, I’m
at my computer writing. And every day, I need to go on-line. There’s mail to
check, and readers to contact. I try to work in a methodical way, so as to make
the most of the time that I have. I try to limit my time on line because the
Internet is many things to many people but to us all it is a huge
time-suck.
I’m wondering
if the problem is that it’s so big, and so vast with so many users that the
people who create those “home pages” need so much stuff to fill them with, that
they’ll grab anything.
Anything at
all.
Here is one
recent headline from AOL. I have changed the name of the person in the headline,
to prevent “hits” to increase their popularity: Jane Doe Eats French Fries In A
Bikini.
At first, I
thought, whoa, french fries in bikinis? What’s that all about? (Yes I am a total
and unrepentant smart ass). I’ll confess. I clicked. I wanted to know about this
new fast food trend.
Of course, it
was Jane Doe who was in the bikini and she was eating fries. And, not only was
there a photo that depicted this earth-shattering event; there was a little
write-up about it, too, as if this truly was a newsworthy item—or we were too
dumb to get the gist of things from the picture. Allow me to regurgitate the
first paragraph of that write up: “Jane Doe is taking a much needed break in the
Bahamas. Clad in a strapless black bikini, the former (blank blank) model was
spotted with her kids on the beach Sunday, March 23, munching on some golden
fries.”
I’m wondering
about something and would be delighted if any of you could help me with it. In
what plane of existence is this news? Are there actually people out there who
care about this? Really? If the answer is yes, my only reaction is: those
poor, poor, people. Imagine being so bereft of purpose and activities in life,
that stories like this are important.
My broader
question is, are these ridiculous stories there because there are so many people
to whom this is news and they want to read them? Or are they there to appeal to
the basest parts of our personalities, so that we click on these items...so that
the publishers of these pages can report “views” to their
advertisers?
Yeah, that’s
what I thought. Am I the only one sick of all the blatant, byte-consuming
advertising on the Internet these days? AOL seems to be the worst for this. One
time their advertising on their “sign in” page was so bad and took up so much
space that my stored sign-in details wouldn’t come up, and I had to key them in.
No, I’m not lazy but my memory isn’t always what it once was. After that
incident, I had to make a file that contains all of my passwords—just in
case.
I’m not naive.
I understand that in these modern times, advertising dollars pay for many of the
entertainment and informational resources available to us. I’m nearly 60 and I
grew up in the age of black and white television that was “free” – all you
needed was the TV, an antenna, and electricity. There were commercials, yes, but
most of them weren’t stupid—and there were no commercials whatsoever
during the evening news. Networks were expected to provide that public service
without commercial interruption—and thereby without using that time to garner
ratings.
So I understand
the need for some ads. But does there have to be so many of them? On home pages
and chat groups and even on Face Book itself. They are everywhere, clogging up
cyber-space, and adding not only to our frustration, but providing more
senseless drivel for minds that are already overloaded with completely useless
information.
And actually,
I’m afraid that isn’t the worst of it.
If ET is out
there, and he’s receiving a chunk of our cyber space, what in the name of all
that’s Holy does he think about us?
Love,
Morgan
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment