26 July 2006


No news is good news? It depends. Sometimes it's better to have some good news than no news. If the news is about an improvement, and that the improvement benefits everyone, why should anyone still want no news? But if the news is about acts of God, then no news is truly good news.

It is also impossible to have no news. People are nosy, and that becomes a demand. So long as there is demand, there will be supply. Reporters have to create not only good news but regrettably also bad news. The question is, what do the nosy readers want first? Good news, or bad news? This is like asking the customary, time-honored question, "Is the glass half empty or half full?"

Seeing the glass as half empty means the person is a pessimist, because that person dwells on the lack in his or her life. Seeing it as half full means the person is optimistic, because that person focus on the good things in life. Everyone knows the metaphor, so in order to be seen as an optimist, even though the person is in fact a pessimist, he or she will choose half full and describe himself or herself as an optimist.

How about the sequence of good and bad news? Is it another metaphor for life? Who cares, when everyone knows how to be a great pretender?

Here comes a joke on good news and bad news. A man gets a telephone call from a doctor. The doctor says: "About this medical test I did on you, I have some good news and some bad news." The man asks for the good news first: "The good news is that you have 24 hours to live," says the doctor. The man, incredulously: "If that is the good news, then what is the bad news??" "I couldn't reach you on the phone yesterday."

In conclusion, no bad news is good news.

No comments: