What'll make headline news? Oh wait, I know....!

Sitting around in college this morning, I was reading an article which I found particularly poor, and expressed my thoughts out loud to friends sitting around me. One of them then remarked that since she's been studying journalism, she's been much more conscious of well stories are written in newspapers. I've found this to be true with myself as well, and this innate critiquing continues into broadcasting also.

I approach this impending rant from a position of the classic journalistic question "what is news?". Now, I have no doubt whatsoever that Dublin Airport being closed entirely due to a volcanic eruption in Iceland is news, but you'd think there's only so much you can do with that story, right? Lots of ash in the air, damaging to planes, airport closed. End of story? So you'd think.

For the purposes of this rant, I will dump purely on TV3, considering I haven't watched RTÉ all day today. Not only did TV3 put the closure as their lead story, but they did what was at least 5 minutes of coverage on it. Excessive. Just a tad.

Really, what else can you say apart from the facts? There sat Alan Cantwell, delivering everything in his usual over-the-top dramatic voice. Cut to Colette Fitzpatrick standing outside Dublin Airport for a live feed, pretty much saying exactly what Cantwell did, just elongated. That's enough reporting, isn't it? Oh golly, no! That won't do at all.

Who's that I hear? Is that the dulcet tones of Brian O'Donovan? Oh yes of course it is. What would the top story be without the deep bass rumble of a Cork accent from TV3's most beloved reporter? Brian proceeds to give us an account of what's actually going on inside the airport, while reams of people queue after their flights have been cancelled. Brian proceeds to annoy a few of them, asking their opinion on what's going on.

But really, who bloody cares?! I don't need to hear the opinion of some disgruntled passengers who, in their frustrated state, will probably no doubt start blaming the airlines for not braving highly dangerous conditions just for them. (Disclaimer - that probably didn't happen, but I stopped listening right around then, and I'm in full flow here).

OK, OK, voxpop finished. Can we go back to Cantwell in the studio? NO, Colette Fitzpatrick has returned with some airport official, repeating pretty much what we already know. The madness never stops.

Who knows, it was probably a slow news day. Maybe I'm just not impressed anymore by what other people view as very interesting, important stories. Or maybe I am right, and the coverage was beyond excessive?

Oh, and another thing....:
A news assignment as uncovered that someone is systematically targeting dogs in an Artane estate, by mixing rat poison with food, and throwing it over garden walls. How evil and despicable can you possibly be to try this?

"Turn off that crap! Now Dizzee Rascal, there was an artist..."

The evolution of music is something that has baffled me ever since I became conscious of the phenomenon. Mozart, to the Beatles, to the Black Eyed Peas. Chopin, to the Rolling Stones, to Meshuggah. Berlioz, to the Beach Boys, to The Prodigy. Put in those terms, it's unbelievable isn't it?

I'm not sure about anyone else, but many times over the past few years I've had the music I listen to ridiculed by my parents as "noise". Their tastes include bands such as Dexie's Midnight Runners, Westlife and Madness, so that comes as no surprise to me when I'm blaring Devin Townsend at 1a.m. Yet, as I progress into manhood, I begin to wonder if I'm going to end up taking this attitude towards my own children's tastes.

Which then begs the question, how will music have advanced in twenty years time? Can metal get any heavier than it is? Can techno get any more annoying or less musical? I honestly cannot imagine a parent in twenty or thirty years time shouting up to their little sprog: "Turn off that crap!", while citing someone such as Dizzee Rascal as more musical than what the child is listening to. How is this possible unless the music they're listening to is just mechanical beeping?!

OK, I digress. I'm letting elitism seep in. But seriously, what is next? If we compare the Beatles to say, Lady Gaga as idols for respective generations, and then translate that another 40 years into the future, what exactly will we be hearing? Or have our generation heard all there is to hear? Has music changed so radically over the past decades that it really has nowhere else to go? Will our children be listening to pretty much what we're listening to, in complete contrast to the musical relationship between our generation and our parents?

I honestly can't imagine metal getting any heavier anyway. When a band like Sunn 0))) can get away with making entire albums out of low tuned drones and feedback (I'm not hating, I actually quite like them) it puts the whole question of musical progression into doubt.

However, up until now I've only been really speaking about periphery genres pushing their own boundaries. Pop music will probably always be around, not exactly reinventing itself completely but nevertheless generating (just about adequately) unique material as it trods along.

I can't really see music being that drastically different by time I'm the uncool dad. In fact, I think some of the stuff I listen to at the minute will still be regarded as experimental at that stage.

I'll leave it up to you readers to think upon this; musical stagnation - good or bad?