Imagine there's no London Daily Mail or asshole like Dominic Sandbrook

What's happened to journalism? Aside from the daily reports of murders, the papers rely more and more on provocateurs like Dominic Sandbrook and Piers Morgan, and media whores including Viley Virus and Kim Kuntrashian.

The London Daily Fail and the Daily Snooze and the others should change their names to "Made You Look!" and "Stole A Dollar Off You!"

You find yourself reading tasteless idiocy, staring at ugly sluts, and wondering, "What NOW?"

Today? The DM gave huge space to Sandbrook to write his own self-promoting article about his new book. Mr. Self-Promotion's target? "Greedy" John Lennon.

How easy it is to slant anything and everything John did and see the negative side of it. John attends a rally but doesn't speak. That makes him a prick. John grew up in a slightly nicer neighborhood than the other Beatles. That makes him an egotistic snob. There's no record of John being beaten up in school, so he can't write "Working Class Hero" and speak for others who were. Most amusing of all, Sandbrook bitches that he can't print the lyrics to "Imagine" because that greedy dead son-of-a-bitch John Lennon had the fucking nerve to COPYRIGHT it.

Copyright is COPYWRONG. But our boy Dominic isn't giving away HIS book. At the bottom of the article are instructions on how to waste 25 pounds BUYING IT.

Here are a few excerpts from the Daily Fail piece (which went on and on and on). It's interesting just to see how easy it is for some weasel to take any event and view it through malicious dark glasses.

Stopping for a moment, should we be slanting Dominic Sandbrook and calling him a grave robber, a maggot, a lurid fop, an incompetent re-hasher and a miserable, negative, mean-spirited sack of shit?

Or would that simply be telling the truth?

Years ago, somebody wrote a huge, negative bio on Lennon, which most people found muckraking and appalling. But the guy had already written up Lenny Bruce and was looking for somebody else to make money on. Only the Lenny Bruce book was actually based on real journalism from a ghost-writer. The Lennon book, well, the guy was on his own, and first and foremost was his determination to become famous, like Kitty Kelly, only with a slightly more prominent twat.

Other bios of John were more balanced, but few were casting a blind eye to the faults John himself acknowledged in both songs and interviews.

There's just not much reason to read newspapers anymore. It's an experience that is rarely informative and most often irritating, frustrating and enraging. In other words, if somebody shot Sandbrook in the back four or five times, maybe I'd be glad to read THAT in the London Daily Mail.