Split From Why is Prince William considered news?

Why is Paris Hilton news?
Why is Lindsay Lohan news?
Why is Mel Gibson news?
Why is <insert random rich and/or famous person here> news?

Is his engagement news enough to take up over 10 minutes of a 30 minute news report when there's a state election in 10 days? And an hour "news" special a bit later?

Resoundingly no.
 
Is there a reason why CNN is playing a 10 minute with Prince William? Why is he so important? I know most people in the US could give a hoot including myself! Any idea?


It could have been worse. You could have been watching the CBC, and gotten a lot more than ten minutes' worth of "news" coverage.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. The Royal Family is not news; it stopped being news once the monarchy passed from being actual rulers into figurehead status. Anything Royal Family-related belongs in the entertainment section, not in the news (for this side of the Atlantic at any rate).
 
Why is Paris Hilton news?
Cos she's a massive slag.

Why is Lindsay Lohan news?
Cos she's an unstable druggy jailbird but, given the chance, you'd still **** her.

Why is Mel Gibson news?
Cos he's a pretty good actor/director who's anti-semitic, an alkie, and gets into some entertaining arguments, and - given the chance - your mother would still **** him.

This is fun, any more?
 
It's somewhat ridiculous to sit through 10 minutes of an interview on CNN to see who Prince Charles is going to marry, don't ya think?

I thought that was pretty common knowledge by now, what with the wedding, and all. :) Even if you meant William, 'who' was not exactly a surprise either, given that they've been a couple for several years.
 
Is there a reason why CNN is playing a 10 minute with Prince William? Why is he so important? I know most people in the US could give a hoot including myself! Any idea?

I know it's hard to understand but there are countries outside of the USofA that not only exist but have - gasp - TV and other technology run by that new-fangled electrictrickery stuff.

CNN seems to be aware of this and have a thriving international audience. My guess is the audience outside of the USofA is probably larger than that within.
ETA: Quick check - 100 million households in the US compared with 200 million households in 200 countries

It is an event that will have some significance - even if it only the forthcoming disruption of traffic in London - that is interesting to many in their audience.

Personally I find it slightly more interesting that the "famous for being famous" celebrities that slither their way in and out of the news - but not by much.

.
 
Last edited:
'A good day to bury bad news' - the wedding announcement kind of overshadowed the fact that earlier in the day the government had decided to settle out-of-court with a number of British citizens who had accused it of being complicit in their torture.
 
Good god, are people still conflating "interesting" with "important"? Important things can be boring, and interesting things can be frivolous. They don't always have to overlap. And news has always been about the interesting, because it sells better. So what if there's news about celebrities doing whatever? If you're interested in that stuff, great. If you're not, tune out. But don't get all in a tizzy because you think some authority is trying to order you to find these matters important. The media just guesses what the majority will find interesting.
 
The coverage is hellacious in the UK. Can't open a newspaper or turn on the TV withotu seeing this rich, well eduated boy having great success while people are going bankrupt around the country.

"There's only one thing I want to know about the publicly subsidised second in line accident of birth wastrel marrying his broodmare: will we get the day off work?"

- Chicken Yoghurt

I lol'd.
 
The coverage is hellacious in the UK. Can't open a newspaper or turn on the TV withotu seeing this rich, well eduated boy having great success while people are going bankrupt around the country.

"There's only one thing I want to know about the publicly subsidised second in line accident of birth wastrel marrying his broodmare: will we get the day off work?"

- Chicken Yoghurt

I lol'd.

Yep, it's seriously annoying. And frankly the only relevant part of the story is whether or not they're going to dip into their own pockets, or make us pay for it like they did the last one.
 
It could have been worse. You could have been watching the CBC, and gotten a lot more than ten minutes' worth of "news" coverage.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. The Royal Family is not news; it stopped being news once the monarchy passed from being actual rulers into figurehead status. Anything Royal Family-related belongs in the entertainment section, not in the news (for this side of the Atlantic at any rate).
Actually, she does still have power but chooses not to exert it.

General gossip amoungst the armed forces is that if HMTQ forces a constituional crisis, we back her. After all, we swear allegiance to her, not the government (apart from the wierd navy types - who are trusted - God help us all :eye-poppi ).

Admittedly she would need to have a damned good reason to go that far!
 
Last edited:
Bloody hell, the Australian (Labor!) Prime Minister just opened Question Time with a speech about what a happy event this was for Australia. Sickening.

While Elizabeth II still remains Queen of Australia (and Head of State*), it is a matter of Diplomacy for the Head of Government to speak positively of her Grandson getting married. Plus, Gillard is Welsh by birth!

So I take it you're a republican?

I am as well.

I am, but not a pitchfork carrying one.

I am a pitchfork carrying Republican with a strong hatred for the royal family, however while the Monarch still remains our Head of State* I will show them the deference they deserve while still working hard to make Australia a Republic.

* - A small programming note for our American friends. The Queen is technically Australian Head of State she (in reality the Prime Minister) appoints a Governor General over Australia, who is our de facto Head of State. There is also some debate over whether The Queen is actually out Head of State, or the Governor General is.
 
* - A small programming note for our American friends. The Queen is technically Australian Head of State she (in reality the Prime Minister) appoints a Governor General over Australia, who is our de facto Head of State. There is also some debate over whether The Queen is actually out Head of State, or the Governor General is.

Oh, you poor naive Austrian. The Queen and your beloved General George G. Governor are in fact the same person. She has a whole closet full of human skins sewn up so she can wear them as costumes and pretend to be many different people. It's all explained in my book, Queen Lizardbreath and the Spacemen Conspiracy, available at fine gas stations everywhere.
 

Back
Top Bottom