An unexpected road block on the way back from Cheltenham had made my journey home half an hour longer than it should have been. I got home at 2am, feeling tired, yet wired - a familiar feeling for the touring comedian, but one I have largely avoided this year thanks to the efforts of Reliable Pete.
But it meant that today I was very tired and felt hungover, even though I hadn't had a drink and it was hard to get on with any work. Although the Edinburgh show is looking in good shape, I still have to write the script for the Edinburgh "Richard Herring's Objective" recording, as well as start to think about the Edinburgh Fringe Podcast show and book some guests (Michael Legge will be appearing in the preview show on the 3rd August at 4.50pm- different time than rest of the run). It's still a walk in the park compared with the work load I had in May and June, but I can't relax yet.
But too blasted to do too much today and spent most of the afternoon sitting on my sofa, staring at my computer, trying to think of something to blog about. That's a rare occurrence these days. I have got pretty good at choosing a subject and just getting on with it, but the gears of my brain were grinding and nothing was happening.
News was coming in from Norway of the bombing and then the shooting and I watched the speculation on rolling news. It is ironic I suppose that rolling news channels are most viewed during a tragedy such as this, and yet it also shows up the redundancy of trying to report live on a situation before any facts are really known. All they can do is show the same piece of footage over and over again and talk on the phone to witnesses and ask "experts" to comment on what they think might have happen.
None of this is helpful or even useful, because as is very apparent in this case, you really need to have some facts before you can report effectively. So early on there was a presumption that this was the work of Islamic extremists and various motives were ascribed as to why they would hit Norway. There was the suggestion that it could be a gas explosion, almost added as an attempt at objectivity, though this was quickly disputed by an expert who said there was no gas mains supply in Norway. Which just directed the journalists to express the fact that it was likely a Muslim terrorist with increasing certainty.
Now we know (and it's still too early to make any bold statements about guilt or motivation) that this was probably not the case. Shouldn't the news have to have facts before it reports? A simple statement of facts and perhaps a warning to people in the area is really all they can achieve in real time, but when it's a big story and when they know people (like me) are tuning in for information, they have to keep chatting on and filling the time, even though there is nothing to add, like they're hosts on a macabre version of the QVC channel.
And yes, as I demonstrated, they are responding to public demand, but in spreading misinformation and supposition they are not doing the job of objective journalists. I can't help thinking that the old system of a news flash, followed by a more considered report on the main news later is the best way to go. Just because people in the modern world (including me) demand instant information, does not mean that this should be provided at the expense of veracity. We're all sitting at home speculating and are perfectly capable of arriving at our own incorrect conclusions. But these big stories are treated less like news and more like pornography. I guess it's human nature to perversely enjoy witnessing a tragedy, like it's a theme park ride or ultra realistic horror film. To be horrified, but maybe titillated as well. We're all fairly appalling in this situation I suppose.
But the people at the rolling news channel, who know they are existing for just such a story, seem barely able to contain their excitement. The more death and destruction there is, the better for them. At times it seems like they are willing it things to be as bad as possible - but maybe this is also a perverse part of human nature which the audience is sharing. If ten teenagers have been shot dead, is that really much less awful than eighty? Obviously mathematically, but in actuality someone mowing down innocents with a machine gun is a terrible thing. It shouldn't become more of a story simply because of quantity.
At the end of the day, just like the News International stuff, we the consumers are getting what we deserve and what we demand. And I was sitting there watching all this, wanting more information and wildly speculating myself and subconsciously putting this in some kind of league table of atrocities. I also felt empathy, sadness and disgust of course, as well as vulnerable and fearful, trying to dismiss the possibility that this could happen to any of us, whilst still believing that it's something that only happens to others and that I am immortal.
My thoughts and sympathies are of course with the people of Norway and I do not intend to belittle this tragedy by debating this aspect of it. I just wonder if we're all belittling all tragedies by such coverage. I don't suppose anything is going to change.
