HAH!
written by All Clear PG , September 29, 2008 (01:53:34 PM)

THIS is what qualifies for news in PG!?

That's a ridiculous comment...
written by tombstone81 , September 29, 2008 (02:30:01 PM)

Come on now...Entertainment News is still news...check out ANY major daily in any city in North America. I may have taken my share of shots at this newspaper for its editorial and journalistic content from time-to-time...but I'm certainly not going to make a sarcastic comment suggesting that they shouldn't publish major concert announcements!

So by your innuendo...there should be no real estate section, no home & garden, no sports, no business, no comics...simply because they lack....what?

I guess in your former hometown they just handed out a photocopy of the previous night's police incident reports to each resident, and called that the newspaper?

I agree... Somewhat...
written by All Clear PG , September 29, 2008 (03:00:54 PM)

Oh, I don't dispute the fact that Entertainment News is still news; my comment is more directed at the band itself and the amount of billing it's receiving... Look at where it's placed in relation to everything else that is happening - it's the first thing you see when you open the web page. We have a looming Federal Election and 'Backstreet Boys', a band with a plethora of teenie-bopper followers gets more press...

When you look at 'the big picture'; it indicates a sad reality that our lives are more media-driven today than ever before, and news is dictated by the amount of 'big money' that is behind it and influencing it. After all, people seem to take more pleasure in watching or reading about'Brittany's latest topple', than they do about say; a local firefighter who saved a cat from a fire... In this sense I suppose we're all guilty of supporting this type of media by watching, buying or subscribing, so they give us 'more of what we want to see'.

Your argument is also a slippery-slope comment that encompasses a great deal more than my original retort, following the logic that "you said '1'; therefore '2','3', and '4' must also be true..." the same influential (albeit incorrect) logic that most media sources use to sway support. Your assumption of my 'innuendo' indicates a pre-judgement of my thought process, which is not only dangerous to your argument, but incorrect as well.

In conclusion, I will refrain from commenting or insinuating on the personal level, unlike your final paragraph; but instead hope to offer 'food for thought'. I do enjoy a good debate!