I don't care much about Brad Pitt and Jennifer Anistor. I don't spend my free time wondering how their marriage is going or how old their child is. Nor should anyone, save friends and family. Despite this, one can't walk past a news stand or kiosk without being bombarded with magazine covers telling us of Robbie Williams' recent sexual escapades or Kobe Bryant's jail sentences. From early on we are shown the lifestyles of the rich and the famous, but never the lifestyles of the poor and the homeless, or the young and the restless. Who decides what's interesting?

The same group that decides whether Dan Brown's latest yarn is a "gripping suspense tale" or a "wordy misinformed yawn"; the media. In this not-so-aptly named Information age we believe that simply turning on the news at 6 makes us informed, and yet no one wonders why the top story is about Zippy the jetskiing parakeet, while the deaths of hundreds of police officers in Bagdad get only a mention before we throw things over to Dan, with sports.

A famous blogger once wrote: "[...] if Joseph Goebbels were alive, he'd give Dan Rather a pat on the back". It is thanks to the recent blog interest that Joe Everyman is starting to understand that what we are told is only a brief summary of a report of a general outline of current events, and that the information is out there, one need onlu reach out and grab it.

While it seems the fad is changing, there is no doubt in my mind that too many people let others decide what to think and worry about. So much money was sent to south-east Asia after the tsunami, and yet millions are starving in Africa. It seems that HIV-sufferers and starving children need better PR-men if they're ever to be helped.