Papers

[andrewducker]

The front of every tabloid this morning was the Jackson trial, which I have zero interest in.

The Guardian was covering some kind of sporting event, about which I care even less.

The Independent led with the world first of brain cells being created in a laboratory, which is likely to be very good news (in the long term) for an awful lot of people and lead to huge medical advantages.

I feel vaguely smug about my choice of paper.

Comments

[andrewducker]

I just don't care about Michael Jackson full stop. I don't really care about any of his music bar a vague fondness for a couple of tracks over 10 years old, and I don't really care about him apart from a vague sympathy for anyone so warped by their upbringing.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Each to his own. "Guy accused of child molestation actually not guilty" is a story that's arguably more worthy than "Kiddie fiddler gets sent down", so I'm happy to cut them some slack for a few days.

[andrewducker]

It is more worthy. But there's one of those in the paper every month or so.

I guess I'm just bored of the cult of celebrity.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

No. You prefer cult "celebrities" ie Warren Ellis, Neil Gaiman et al.

I read the news online, so see a fairly random front page...

I look at the metro on the way to work for Nemi

[andrewducker]

I don't care that those people are famous - I care that they have interesting ideas. I look forward to entries by heron61 just as much, or theferret.

[octopoid-horror.livejournal.com]

*actually chokes on his coffee*

In rl conversations, if you refer to Warren Ellis, Wil Wheaton, Neil gaiman etc and the things that they've said on their blogs or whatever, you'll use their names. You don't nearly as much with other non-internet-or-otherwise-celebrity people. And it can't be that you use those names to get people to go look, because you'll drop them into conversation with people who (i'd imagine) you know have no interest in those people.

You may not, of course, be aware that you do this.

[andrewducker]

It goes to show how much attention you pay to what I say - I've been to Wil's home page maybe twice ever :->

Warren Ellis says interesting things quite a lot, and Neil Gaiman forwards on interesting links and mentions of his new projects (both of which I find interesting). I do know that I've mentioned TheFerrett at least twice this week to people, but that is, admittedly, rarer.

Also, saying "Neil Gaiman was writing about X" needs no explanation for most of my friends. Saying "TheFerrett, who is this guy off of LJ, was writing about X" usually makes for odd looks, and is therefore likely to be mentioned less.

And I can't imagine who I'v ementioned either Gaiman or Ellis to who'd have no knowledge of the names. I possibly have, but I'd tend to only use them when talking to non-work people, who generally are comics reading freaks.

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

Why??? Like very other comic strip they have ever had in the Metro it is neither funny nor interesting in anyway whatsoever. I can only presume that the writer/artists PAY the paper to take their strips as they are uniformly so bad.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. I feel sorry for him and see the whole mess as a sign of how badly freaks and eccentrics are treated in the US.