Saints are 'increasingly hopeful' on Victor Wanyama signing a new deal at St. Mary's

an error with the ' ...?

 

I get some interesting news stories from here... yes, that's true, or as Chilco says, the two minutes news summaries on the radio. Very occasionally I stay up and watch the headlines on the news.

 

If you enjoy torture, watch your local news thing at ten thirty. Count how many bad news bits there are before they have to admit defeat and admit that a puppy somewhere did a nice thing. On South Today, the average is six bad news to one good. Or it was when I still watched the £*^%$&** thing.

Vin

 

Bugger missed that one. Same suspect as the bloke who nicked a bag from Mrs Mimms from Minehead according to Google. Thanks for heads up, Vin

 

But that's because good news is no news in their world. I once worked as a press officer for a trade union. We did all sorts of good local community things - zero interest. One of our members caught shop-lifting and they were all over us for a story. You're right, the media do distort our view of the world.

Still can't give it up though .... off for therapy.

 

There's that old wartime saying that No News is Good News. The media turned that around by saying that Good News is No News. Which is strange because I've never seen a news programme with an equal balance of good and bad news, so I'm not sure how they ever came to that conclusion. Even ITV used to put out just one good news item into their And Finally... slot, as if it was some kind of apology or excuse for showing all the bad news.

It's quite an odd thing when you think about it. Why isn't there an equal balance broadcast of good and bad news? Does it stem from religion - that is, it is our religious duty to watch bad news so that we can feel guilty for being OK, and therefore somehow have our own sins atoned? I don't know.

 

Have you seriously tried?

 

Think everyone is missing the point....bad news sells and may also be more important. Its more important to be aware of a spate of burglaries, murders and rapes in my area than in news that someone is running a marathon for charity. Good things are the norm....bad things are the exception we need to know about. There are magazines about good things....try mags on gardening, weddings, knitting etc....papers are entirely different things. Every paper includes happy stuff, but it would have to be exceptional (like finding Madeline McCann) for it to make the front page and sell papers.

 

I read the i because it's short and cheap. Then I get the Guardian on a Friday because the music section is excellent.

That's all my news for today.

 

Why is there any need to know about burglaries, rapes or murders? Serious question.

Vin

 

So no news on Victor then....?

 

Surely the need for greater vigilance is obvious if the crime rate has risen in your area...why would you not want to be forewarned.

 

Yep he's gone in the Summer

 

I agree. Maybe it's a female thing.

 

Darkened rooms, sweating palms, reading the Daily Mail. I've tried the lot.

 

How about going for that walk?

 

Who?

 

Thought about it, but put off by all the talk of assaults that Fran mentioned.

 

There you go then. Don't take in the news, and you won't be afraid to go for a walk. Can't live your life scared all the time.

 

Perhaps, but you're looking at news whose sample size is big. I can only speak for myself but my behaviour is based on the fact that almost every single person I know is thoroughly decent rather than on events unusual enough that they stand out in a huge sample. I might take note if something (say burglary) happened to a couple of friends but if I base my activity on what I read has happened in a city of a quarter of a million people, I'll be worrying about things that will almost certainly never happen to me. If I worry about things I read on a national basis, I'll be reading about things that are probably one in sixty million occurrences (or they wouldn't be newsworthy). I'd be much wiser to look both ways when I cross the road than to change my behaviour based on anything in the paper.

There's a good rule of thumb for this. Most people know around 150 people. If something happens to one of them, it's worthwhile to know; it's a 1 in 150 chance. If it happens to a friend of a friend, it's a 1 in 22,500 occurrence and might possibly be worth knowing. A sample size bigger than that and you're kidding yourself if you think it matters. For comparison, the chances of being killed in a road accident in any year in the UK is about 1 in 40,000. Death from falling down the stairs, 1 in 90,000. Compare that to a sample size on the IOW of 138,000. I don't lose any sleep worrying about either dying on the road or falling down stairs but if I read about a murder in Southampton, I'm supposed to be concerned*? Not me.

* Chances are I'll be shot tonight now and my death certificate will give the cause of death as "poetic justice".

Vin