Ever since the Ebola panic in America died down in 2014 you see a lot of articles titled “Why isn’t Ebola airborne?” What a ridiculous question. Who cares why it isn’t airborne? The important thing is it’s not. That’s like asking “Why didn’t that scary looking guy mug me?” There’s no point in asking that kind of question. Why not publish a story called “Why didn’t the 9/11 hijackers aim lower on the Twin Towers?” Can’t we just be glad they didn’t so more people could escape the buildings, and leave it that? Sometimes bad stuff happens and fortunately, for a number of possible reasons it has never gotten so bad that humanity went extinct. Wondering why Ebola isn’t airborne reveals a horribly negative attitude. It’s almost like these people wanted Ebola to be airborne. Now I admit that would have been a great news story, but it’s an inappropriate subject for a news article. A question like that is meant for an apocalyptic thriller novel, not a news site. It’s apparent that news companies actually want horrible things to happen and that’s why I think you’ll see social media play an even larger role in news in the future. The news reporters of the future will be regular citizens because we prefer being informed about tragedy by people who are unhappy to see it as opposed to salivating dogs yipping at the sight of death.
|How come a comet doesn't just come and put all of us out of our misery?|