-->
For
several years the only newspaper I have subscribed to has been The Guardian Weekly, an offshoot from
what originally was for almost a century the most admired newspaper in the
English-speaking world, The Manchester
Guardian, which for many years now has been known simply as The Guardian (of London).
The Weekly has
recently undergone a metamorphosis into a magazine-style function that seems to
have been welcome to most of its readers, although not so much to me. I
recently went to an optometrist to find out what was happening to my eyes: he told
me nothing was wrong with them, but I could use more light when I read. So now
I have a light over each shoulder, and they reflect back a sharp and varying
light from the glossy paper on which the magazine is now printed, that makes it
even more difficult to read, especially with its extremely small print. But then,
as my cancer doctor says, I have to remember the context, by which he means, I
am 91, after all.
In other ways, too, I find the new magazine to be that
much less than a newspaper in that it now prints more articles of a
sociological and scientific nature (or off-shoots therefrom) than I would
wish. An advantage of the new format is that
it is easy to leave lying around, and just his morning I picked up a copy from
April 12, containing an article on a group of apparently unspeakable idiots
called “influencers”, who are manipulating the capitalist system in bizarre and
profitable (to them) ways, the sort of thing I would normally bypass rather than read about. This article --- I read it in an
extremity upon awakening at 5.10 a.m. --- contained some amazing stuff, such as
there is a whole industry built around extreme phonies who celebrate online such
bizarre holidays as Vlogmas. And that
one of the pillars of this industry is Kim Kardashian West, one of these people
who are famous for being famous, who, according to Sophie Elmhurst, author of
the article, has recently “been extravagantly paid for promoting an appetite-suppressing lollipop to
her then 111-million Instagram followers.”
Much as I might have felt like just giving up on
capitalism and all its works right there, things hardly got better when I
picked up a similarly discarded copy of the magazine dated May 3, which I found
contained a similarly missable article about the industrial battle --- I kid
you not --- for supremacy between mechanical hand-dryers in public washrooms,
and the more traditional paper towels. Why anybody would be bothered to write
either article, let alone read them, is slightly beyond my comprehension, but I
have to confess: I did read them.
It reminds me of what one of my sons, an omnivorous
reader of internet material, is always reminding me. Louis C.K. one of his
comedy heroes, apparently has a routine about how false is the indignation of the
air passenger who calls the stewardess to complain vociferously when his
internet reception is interrupted while he is being transported around the
globe at 36,000 feet and flying along at
550 miles an hour.
Or, to give another example, as my son says, there
seem to be two major complaints in the city, usually made by the same person,
the one being constant bitching about the
terrible conditions of city road surfaces, and the other about the endless delays
caused by road construction when the potholes are being fixed.
I myself can add an example: I read the article on the
cleanliness or otherwise of public washrooms, which emphasized that
power-driven hand-dryers send out health-destroying bacteria throughout the
washroom (something that never even occurred to me before, and that I still
hardly think is worthy of public notice), with an appropriate amazement because
I will never forget having experienced the terrors of a genuinely dirty public
washroom when, at the age of 23, I roamed the streets of 1951 Bombay suffering
from an attack of diarrhoea. The attack itself was unpleasant, but to find
myself in a confined space whose walls and the seat of which were completely
covered with human feces, was the greater punishment.
As essayist Mark Crispin Miller
writes in a satirical comment on a recent vapid article by a journalist, introducing
herself to the readers of The New York
Times, who reveals that she was brought up in Liberia, and had been attracted
to the profession by her delight and interest in all the weaponry of the American
forces, leading to her to deliver this remarkable paragraph:
I’ve flown for hours in the
co-pilot seat of a B-1 bomber, including during midair refuels. I’ve done the
catapult takeoff and abrupt landing on an aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
I’ve been in Apache, Black Hawk and Chinook helicopters over Baghdad, Kabul and
the DMZ, on the border of North and South Korea. I’ve been on an American naval
destroyer in the South China Sea while it was being shadowed by the Chinese.
That part of the job is just pure fun.
As Miller comments acidly, the journalist might be better employed trying
to find out where the $21 trillion that the Pentagon could not account for
during a failed $900-million audit had gone, and, he writes, that
if
(she) were to look into that mind-boggling disappearance, and the Pentagon's decades of stonewalling as to where their money
(that is, our money) goes, it could be the "most challenging"
investigation of her whole career.
So, to return
to my theme, the reiteration of shallow, meaningless articles about shallow,
meaningless aspects of capitalist society is as likely to sicken an attentive readership
as to delight them. Or maybe even more likely.
But wot the hell! Wot the
hell! to quote my mantra.
No comments:
Post a Comment