It’s almost cliche at this point to talk about or make fun of how the local news tries to scandalize everything, but it is true that when you watch that thing the overwhelming sense is not that you are learning about the happenings of the world or engaging with the important debates of the day, but simply that you’re listening to some vaguely uninformed friend going on a hyperventilating rant about the cashier who wronged them, or whatever. I feel like the motto for the local news, ANY local news, should just be “WAIT UNTIL YOU HEAR WHAT SO-AND-SO OR MAYBE SOMETHING DID NOW!!!” There is some sitcom that I watch on my DVR that always includes the two-second bumper from that evening’s 11PM local news broadcast and every week I am reminded that I really should make a supercut of those because they are hilarious. Again, it is almost cliche how hilarious they are. It is like shooting two-second bumpers from the 11PM local news broadcast in a barrel. But every week it is this woman in too much makeup staring deadpan into the camera and asking “ARE GRAPES KILLING YOU?” Or maybe, “HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE CASHIER AT STAPLES?” All of that being said, this local news broadcast in which a woman and her family are interviewed on their front lawn (?!) about a store at the mall selling leopard print crotchless panties for children is almost legitimate. That store probably shouldn’t be doing that. Can we talk about this inside? No? Out on the front lawn for the whole time it is, then.
I love how the story doesn’t start with them going into a clothing store for children and discovering crotchless panties for children. The story starts with them taking their son to a play area and there being a new store near the play area. LET’S MAKE SURE TO GET ALL THE DETAILS, LOCAL NEWS STORY. The Pultizer Committee hates when you do a story about a new store at the mall selling crotchless panties for children but you don’t report on what the mother who discovered the crotchless panties for children was doing at the mall RIGHT BEFORE she went into the store. (Although, actually, she says that they were heading “towards” the play area. We do not know if they ever actually MADE IT to the play area! We will continue to stay with this story as it develops.)
But what I love even more than that is the store’s defense that although they will remove the offending product from their shelves, they would like to point out that about 25% of their inventory is for teenagers. Uhhhhhhh. REST YOUR CASE! I am pretty sure that teenagers ALSO don’t need crotchless panties? Like, we are all in basically 100 percent agreement that children don’t need them, but let’s say that we are the 99% of America who also agree that teenagers don’t need them. “Oh these crotchless panties? Of course these aren’t for a 7-year-old. What kind of monsters do you think we are? Those are clearly in the section marked 14-year-olds, ma’am.” Perfect. You know you are dealing with a genius when they argue that the crotchless panties for children made up the 25% of their inventory intended for teenagers, but you already suspected that you were dealing with a genius when you found out their store was called “Kids N’ Teen.” Good name for a store. Good inventory. Good arguments. Good news. (Via WarmingGlow.)