On the Joke that is Journalism

Perhaps sometimes I go out of my way to make my headings have an element of alliteration about them, but I like to do it. Besides, today's is accurate. Journalism these days is a joke - I imagine there are a few newspapers somewhere out there that say things as they really are, but generally speaking everything is influenced by something/someone or other. I have a particular bone to pick with the BBC today, who ran an article in their magazine section entitled, 'Intimate Strangers.' Essentially, some woman or other is wandering around London taking photographs of the people she always sees on the way to work, but never speaks to. The article is written as if she's had some incredible revelation about life in the 21st century, and the comments the BBC has chosen to put up as reactions to the article generally show readers exclaiming, wow! I've always thought this as well! How utterly cool?!
Shoot them all now. What the BBC should have done is run alongside this article another regarding the total lack of education in our country today. Has nobody else noticed that what this woman is basically doing is working on something Walt Whitman came up with over 150yrs ago? ('Crossing Brooklyn Ferry', for all my equally uneducated readers out there). This lack of communication she has noticed is hardly original... and overall, his poem is far more effective than her stream of photographs with 'fascinating' stories attached to each picture. Perhaps she is secretly scheming to turn the UK into America, in the sense that all people will be disturbingly friendly and enthusiastic about their fellow citizens. Americans are an awesome lot to watch; I particularly like the breed that appear as the audience on the likes of the Oprah Winfrey show. But really, keep them in America - the British 'stiff upper lip' should be celebrated, not denegrated.
Oh, I emailed this point into the BBC - the part related to Whitman and originality anyhow - but obviously it hasn't appeared as a 'comment'. Who is moderating these things? I remember attacking some ridiculous article about popular books, with everyone being 'surprised' that their favourite novels were invariably in the Waterstone's '3 for 2' offers. At this point, I cast my eyes heavenwards and shake my head...
While I'm on the subject, I'm absolutely fed up with seeing peoples' 'favourite book lists' that are merely designed to impress others. It is incredible how Dostoyevsky can suddenly become somebody's favourite author because at some point they managed to struggle through, 'Crime and Punishment.' Likewise, these lists invariably include a Dickens, an Austen, a Woolf if the person has any pretensions of feminism, and a J K Rowling if they aim to appear 'childlike'. People who have read, 'The Alchemist' are suddenly leading experts on Paulo Coehlo - had they bothered to read more than about three of his books, they'd have realised that all his ideas are summed up in those and further novels are mere repeats. Yes, they're interesting ideas, but I like a new concept in each book, not repetition of a successful formula.
I suppose the most depressing 'favourite book' lists are those which only incorporate, 'To Kill a Mockingbird', 'The Great Gatsby', and, 'Pride and Prejudice'. These books are the standard GCSE syllabus in the UK, and the fact is the reader hasn't actually gone beyond what the curriculum told them to read by the age of 16.
No wonder the journalists of today apparently don't know about one of the classic American poems. With the likes of 'York Notes' to help students out, who actually needs to KNOW anything these days?

(Additional thought: whoever came up with the headline, 'EU hardens tone on enlargement' should be promoted. Plus, check out this link for proof of wonderful journalism: http://www.thelocal.se/5818/20061215/ )