High Horse

This is just entertainment journalism, but it is still wrong. When the story of Owen Wilson being taken to the hospital first appeared online yesterday, the headlines would say something like "Actor Wilson hospitalized for unknown reason." Reading the article would indicate he released a bland statement asking for privacy during this difficult time and that it was not known what had happened. Then, apparently, The National Enquirer reported - using unnamed sources, of course - that it was a suicide attempt. Now, all the headlines for legitimate news agencies (AFP, Reuters, Times UK, etc) claim that it was after suicide reports. He may very well have attempted suicide - I don't know. But it's also possible that he didn't and just because one non-news agency (The National Enquirer) reported he did, does not make it OK to put in the headlines that he "reportedly attempted suicide." By that token, I would like to say that Bush is a moron, an actual moron. I expect that headlines tomorrow should say something to the effect of, "Leader of US reported to be actual moron." I reported it, right? So that makes it OK to use in a headline. It's not actually necessarily true, but since I typed it, it was reported and it's now reportable news. This stuff drives me nuts. There is absolutely no reason that Star or The National Enquirer or even US should ever be used as a source for a legitimate news agency. If those are the types of sources they use, how am I expected to believe *anything* that is reported? How do I know their sources for real news aren't just as flaky?! Bravo to the AP for leaving the word suicide out of the headline and explaining that his publicist did not respond to questions about media reports it was a suicide. That was actually reporting the facts and not misleading.

And now I'll get off my high horse. And back to laundry. That will be a fun trip.

And I'll leave you with something fun. The Mythbusters take on the "Bull in a china shop" saying ... very interesting!