A video clip accompanies the following caption on a web site called Asylum.com:
"We feel a bit guilty for laughing at this veteran reporter's unfortunate bee sting incident. Honestly though, is there anything quite as funny as seeing an old guy reel off a string of f-bombs?"
OK, so now a short clip of a TV reporter swatting a bee is news? It's funny, eh?
I stumbled upon this web site, caption and video because it was one of the "news" items being promoted on my AOL home page this morning as I sipped my coffee. Apparently, the video originates from another web site called LiveLeak.com, I think. It's often hard to tell where or how video clips are being obtained.
A few things rubbed me the wrong way with this:
1. Watching a guy get stung by a bee isn't compelling video, nor does it have any journalistic merit whatsoever. It's not even amusing in the least, in my opinion, and continues to contribute to the dumbing down of society that flocks to Olive Garden franchise restaurants while authentic, healthier mom-and-pop Italian eateries are driven out of business. At best, video clips like this provide a sense of mundane voyeurism, a cheap giggle, and put a few nickels in the pockets of those who are only concerned with making money and going viral.
2. There is so much crap on the Internet just as there is in music, dining and theater. Makes one wonder how something that is such a technological marvel and provides so much good, so much useful information, connectivity and entertainment, can also be used in trivial and mindless ways. When the most ordinary mishaps become highly visible and promoted on sites that consider themselves mainstream, general information providers, I have to question the judgment of the people running the show at AOL.
3. Asylum.com sells itself as a "weird news" provider for men (assuming they actually mean adolescent boys and college geeks), like the real news isn't weird enough these days. OK, at least it's not trying to compare itself with The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. However, what is so weird about a bee sting or how someone reacts to it? I and millions of others would probably react the same way. And why the snotty comment about the "old guy?" Who wrote the caption, a 15-year-old intern with authority issues?
4. This should not be on AOL's home page carousel of top news. It's not so much offensive as it is insulting to my intelligence, like many other trite items and the trickery used to get us to interact with some sites. I don't need to be directed by AOL to go check out this video for idiots. I would not otherwise seek out a site like that or spend 10 seconds watching this kind of clip. I know that AOL, like many online entities, is trying to get people to click on things for financial reasons, but c'mon, there has to be some sort of judgment applied to a mainstream site that is attempting to appeal to a larger general audience since it became a free service recently.
Is it now considered bad business to maintain reasonable standards on the Web? Is the NewYorkTimes.com going to begin promoting videos of "old guys" cutting themselves while shaving because that's what attracts traffic to the site?
AOL, like Google and Yahoo and many others, wants to be many things to many people. And that's part of the problem. One of those things is to be a news provider. When AOL or others promote stuff like this as news or as being worthy of our attention, they lose all credibility and I feel compelled to use another e-mail provider or search engine for my home page.
In the quest to make money and have a presence online, too many mainstream companies, like Time Warner, are losing sight of the fact that there is an audience that still prefers quality entertainment, smarter humor and satire (see theOnion.com) relevant news and information that sets the bar a little higher than bee-sting videos.
I think Google is a decent service and doesn't force stupidity down your throat. The silliness and raunchy material is there if you want to seek it out, but it doesn't greet you with your morning coffee. I am generally opposed to any kind of censorship, so I do believe the Internet should remain open to all forms of expression no matter how stupid I might think it is. I am simply asking those who make certain content decisions on the mainstream sites, particularly any that even hint of being a serious news provider, to be a bit more thoughtful in their choices.
