[hshdhdhj4444]

This article has such a weird framing.

It keeps repeating how the cleaner air is so good for tourists.

But tourists visiting Paris for a week don’t get the majority of the benefit from cleaner air.

The Parisian residents living there throughout the year do.

Maybe because it’s CNN, an American outlet, they’re focused on the “tourist”, but these benefits have mostly accrued to Parisians.

Also, the 4% increase in traffic jams is minuscule when compared to other large cities across the world (outside of maybe NYC, since it implemented congestion pricing over that period). Paris has not escaped the wrath of the SUV, and a large part of the congestion cities across the world are seeing is solely down to cars becoming bigger.

[frnx]

The new large cycling strips that appeared in the last 5-6 years are so good. At commute time there are frequently jammed with /cyclists/, but let's face it it's miles better than being stuck in a car. I shudder to think about the alternative where each cyclist was instead alone in a small car, this wouldn't even fit on the roads.

[philamonster]

I would love to be on what amounts to a group ride to and from work safely. That has to do wonders for all kinds of things both physical and mental. If it were safe I would do it year round.

[recursivegirth]

I would rather float to work like the Swiss.

https://www.businessinsider.com/switzerland-workers-commute-...

[tw-20260303-001]

Yeah, unless you’re a pedestrian. Cyclists in NL in cities like Utrecht or Amsterdam are worse than car drivers.

[david-gpu]

As a pedestrian, I would rather risk a crash with a cyclist than with a car.

[tw-20260303-001]

As a pedestrian I would hope that those cyclists remember when they’re pedestrians too. Both can kill you easily. But cars don’t sneak up on you silent from behind when you’re on a sidewalk.

[david-gpu]

Have you looked at any actual data about the rate at which drivers and cyclists kill people in your area? Can you even find news about the last time a cyclist killed a pedestrian in your city?

Because I keep an eye on the official Police stats in Toronto and it is eye-opening. Statistically, drivers kill people, and cyclists don't. It is not even remotely close.

[thrance]

> Both can kill you easily.

What a ridiculous statement. Motorized vehicles are involved in the vast majority of road casualties. You are much, much more likely to die from a car accident than a bike accident.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Most collisions between cyclists and pedestrians end up with the cyclist getting more hurt. Also, the blame for collisions is slightly more attributed to pedestrians (e.g. walking across a cycle lane without looking).

As I recall, pedestrians are more likely to be killed by a driver whilst on the pavement, so whilst collisions may be more frequent with cyclists, they are extremely unlikely to lead to a KSI.

[financetechbro]

Unless they’re EVs tho right

[Rebelgecko]

How often do cyclists kill pedestrians relative to drivers?

[consp]

You haven't been in a bicycle-jam until you've been before an open bridge just before the university colleges start in the Netherlands. Hundreds of cyclists trying to squeeze through a tiny bottleneck. Still costs less time than by going in a car.

[suddenlybananas]

I do wonder how many cyclists in Paris are really replacing cars versus replacing metro usage. Obviously, it's still good for people to cycle as well since the metro can be insanely crowded at times, but living in Paris, my impression is that the people who cycle are the kinds who would have been unlikely to own a car in any case.

[nchagnet]

That's a really good point, I hope at the very least it enables a "car -> public transport -> bikes" flow. So even if these people were taking the metro, all that extra metro space can accomodate car-owners who wish to switch.

[martinald]

It depends though. At least in London a lot of cycleways were made by removing bus lanes and replacing them with high quality segregated cycle lanes.

This has led to a big increase in %age terms of cyclists in London, but a fairly significant decline in bus passengers.

I think roughly 300m/yr cycle journeys were added, but bus has lost 500m pax/yr (mainly because of increased congestion making them less and less attractive). Note this isn't all down to bus lane removal, but it's a significant part of it.

[kergonath]

> I do wonder how many cyclists in Paris are really replacing cars versus replacing metro usage.

That’s not necessarily a problem, particularly for saturated lines like the 13.

[saltysalt]

Exactly.

[jay_kyburz]

I don't love the waist high black poles that separate the roads from the cycle lanes on some roads. They are not visible enough.

When we were there a few years ago we saw a young woman on a bike slam into one on her morning commute.

I nearly nutted myself a few time too.

[throw-the-towel]

Well IDK, as a pedestrian in Paris I hate cyclists way more than I hate cars. Cycling in the Netherlands is wonderful; here, it might well have been a mistake.

[drnick1]

> At commute time there are frequently jammed with /cyclists/, but let's face it it's miles better than being stuck in a car.

Cycling is wonderful, except when it rains, when it's cold, when it's hot, when it's windy, or when you want to carry stuff. So it's not a practical solution 80% of the year.

[mcv]

Get a rain coat, a warm coat, take it off, and make sure you've got a big crate on your bike.

Wind does suck. I can't help you there.

[occz]

Electric assist helps with the wind.

Or just building some fitness, which in my experience comes automatically when you bike

[drnick1]

Unless you have a place to shower and change at work or wherever you go, biking is utterly impractical. That's also assuming you have a safe place where to leave your bike, and that your commute is like 10 miles or less.

[mcv]

Not true. There's no need to shower after a short trip. Or even a 10km trip, if you don't exert yourself too much. But fortunately many offices do have showers. Also, bike locks exist.

There are millions of people who find cycling incredibly practical, so claiming it's impractical for some easily debunked reasons only shows the limitations of your experience. But you can fix that. Give it a try.

[gambiting]

God I hate this argument so much - it's just such an obviously incorrect statement which is always hard to win against because then the other side will always say "well what if you live in Novosibirsk and it's -60C outside, WHAT THEN CYCLISTS" - well nothing, if you live there then yeah I guess it doesn't work. But if you live in London, Paris, Warsaw, Barcelona, Talin or Stockholm it just doesn't hold water , and these are places that get very hot, very cold, get plenty of rain, snow and wind. It's like that old thing about beetles being too heavy to fly but also they can't read so they don't care - somehow cyclists in these places just get on their bikes and get to work and carry stuff and stay dry or cold or warm and it's fine, despite what the internet thinks.

[marc_g]

I’m with you. As someone who cycles every day, just put the right clothes on when the weather calls for it, and if you need to buy a sofa, then rent an hourly car for ten bucks.

[hectdev]

I've been to Copenhagen in the dead of winter with snow on the ground and my mind was blown by how many bikes there were on the streets. It really is an adaptable activity.

[ndsipa_pomu]

I believe they prioritise clearing snow/ice from the cycle lanes.

Personally, I enjoy cycling on snow as it's often not that slippery and due to the cold, I'll usually have a fair amount of clothing to act as padding for if I do come off. Black ice is worse as the rest of the road may be fine, so you go fast until suddenly you're sliding down the road.

[ZeroGravitas]

I often say that when cycling I don't mind the cold, the rain or the wind, only when you get all three at once it gets bad.

[jfengel]

On a nice day it's fantastic to be out, but Paris can be cold and rainy. They really need to have a plan for those days, too.

Paris Metro is pretty nice, and reaches most of the car free area. But I'm not sure if it can handle all of the cyclists if they're all trying to avoid a déluge.

[nchagnet]

I live in the Netherlands where the weather is arguably tougher than in Paris (rain, cold and wind for large portion of the year) yet everyone bikes year in year out.

And not just young active people, it's a habit found across all age groups, parents bike their children to school (or with them if old enough, etc.)

All that to say I wouldn't worry too much about the feasibility issue, it's really more of a mindset to adopt, and it's happening more and more in France.

[jacquesm]

Paris has one thing that Amsterdam does not that makes cycling more challenging: elevation. (Ok, Amsterdam has bridges but those are for the most part really short and momentum is enough to carry you across).

[consp]

I seriously consider 6-7bft headwind far worse than any hill. Won't get that in large cities but a bit out that's normal cycling weather.

[jacquesm]

That's true, we can have some serious wind here.

[microtonal]

I cycled to work every day in Southern Germany, which had even more elevation, it was not a huge problem, you get fit enough in now time. Older people just use e-bikes.

[jacquesm]

> Older people just use e-bikes.

Or those with bad legs. Raises hand.

[nchagnet]

Oh I agree. When I lived in Lyon, who is also quite bike-friendly, it was a lot more challenging than Amsterdam.

But with electric bikes becoming more affordable, hopefully the gap can eventually close.

[jacquesm]

I've become utterly addicted to my e-bike. You can have my car, but my e-bike stays.

[prpl]

In amsterdam, few people wear modern/synthetic rain coats as well. Just riding around in the rain with what I assume must be waxed duck out something

[stef25]

> the Netherlands

It's completely flat and the obvious reason why everyone cycles. Nothing to do with mindset, like you're somehow superior to the rest of EU.

[david-gpu]

Bicycles have had gears for almost a century, and they allow to tackle hilly areas easily. Also, the Netherlands is notoriously windy, and a headwind is just as difficult as a hill.

No, what makes the Netherlands different is their street design prioritizing safety rather than speed at all costs. When the streets feel safe from speeding drivers, more people choose to ride a bike.

[stef25]

> Bicycles have had gears for almost a century, and they allow to tackle hilly areas easily.

Assuming everyone but you is retarded.

[nchagnet]

Considering I'm not Dutch, you may feel reassured there is no superiority feeling at play here.

I agree with another commenter that while flat, the Netherlands have their own hurdles (biking with a strong headwind on the banks of the IJ is not easy, even if flat), and I definitely agree that their city design is what makes this unique.

I lived in various parts of France growing up, and I can assure you there are flat cities there, yet biking in them felt very risky at best.

[IneffablePigeon]

This “nobody cycles in bad weather” is a tired myth. Yes, there’s some truth in it but cycling numbers past the traffic counters in my city in the UK (very similar climate) dip by 10-30% in winter months, and the higher end of those is mostly leisure routes not commuting ones. The Netherlands has a lot of rain and much more cycling than most other places.

[jacquesm]

Summer here is on Tuesday. The rest of the year it is rain, alternating with fog, snow & ice.

Nah, jk, it's a beautiful day today and I'm thinking of going for a ride.

[p_j_w]

This is overblown. I visited Tokyo recently and a friend of mine was constantly riding his bike around in the middle of a cold and snowy winter. He wasn't the only one, either.

[enriquto]

> Paris can be cold and rainy

I cycle in Paris every week, and the only annoying experience climate-wise is the extreme heat you can get some days in july and august. If it's cold or wet, you can just wear appropriate clothes and be comfortable. But if it's sunny and 35°C, you are going to be drenched in sweat no matter what! Of course, being in the metro those days is even worse...

[hamdingers]

Put on a jacket.

One of the saddest effects of car-dependency is people forgetting how to dress themselves for the weather.

[microtonal]

I have cycled every working day in The Netherlands and in Germany for years (in Germany it was 22km per day) and I would often cycle a bit recreationally in the weekends. It really isn't an issue at all. I just have a waterproof jacket (one of those that circulate air as well), water resistant shoes, and rain pants. On very rainy days, I would put on the rain pants and would arrive mostly dry.

It is not really an issue.

The only thing that was slightly meh was the yearly ~two weeks of thick snow in Southern Germany. It increases effort a bit, but still not a huge issue and the cycling roads got cleared pretty quickly.

[bethekidyouwant]

I would almost believe this, except for your shoes get absolutely soaked.

[microtonal]

They don't, Gore-Tex Eccos with high-enough collars. (Gore-Tex does have other issues though.)

[alamortsubite]

Not necessarily. I have a pair of Gore-tex Nikes that are amazing.

[iamkonstantin]

I think it’s no easy task to reform a city away from being car-centric. In my home town of Ghent (in Belgium), we’ve had several iterations of a traffic plan that gradually reduces the number of parking spaces, rises taxes and car related costs, makes streets one way or deprioritises cars (e.g. a car doesn’t have priority over a bike anymore) etc. It’s not easy but the city today is a lot more liveable than it was when all this started.

[jfengel]

It's a good illustration of why solving climate change isn't just a matter of individual actions. We need to reconsider the whole infrastructure, and you can't do that from the bottom up.

[skeletal88]

But then public transport has to improve also. You cant make owning a car impossible without offering alternatives.

[rsynnott]

Generally, restrictions on cars make public transport better automatically, as they make buses work better.

[zahlman]

It certainly helps the buses move more efficiently, but it can't do much about things like bus stop placement, or just generally sense of place as you start or end your trip.

[alamortsubite]

> it can't do much about things like bus stop placement

Why not? Fewer cars means more room for bus stops.

[zahlman]

Because there has to be a place where the bus stop could sensibly be. A history of car-centric design often eliminates those opportunities.

[bluGill]

car centric areas put their front door far from anyplace a but can easilly get. Either the but slows everyone else down because it is going in and out of all these parking lots and cul-de-sacs, or the walk from the but stop to where you are going is already your entire travel budget.

[mantas]

Not really. Unless the restriction is to take a generic lane and dedicate it to buses. But if restriction is to take a generic lane and give it to bicycles, then both cars and buses sit in the same traffic jam.

[rsynnott]

So, first, it would be rare to bring in restrictions of this sort without doing something to buses. But even if you _don’t_, reduction in traffic helps buses (assuming you already have bus lanes, which any city doing this stuff generally would, the main problem for buses is intersections, which this helps with)

[mantas]

It`s totally possible.

My city excels at this. We are at level where bus system is not enough at all. But the municipality is trying to avoid it since it’s seen as politically tricky. Nobody wants to start it, take the beating and then let opponents cut the tape a decade later. The bus system is struggling too. Old buses, incomplete bus lanes and so on. When one jackass got an idea to reduce car traffic and started with adding obstacles to cars without improving public transit… Traffic did not better. And buses get stuck with the rest. Thankfully remote/hybrid work is all the rage. In recent decade quite a few offices and other workplaces moved away from urban core. That helps the situation a bit.

[stalfie]

Alternatives naturally become more viable over time as more and more people find car use impossible, but its kind of hard to tell in advance which lanes of public transport are most necessary to improve. So imo the best solution is just to do it, and then see what happens and adapt. It's too hard to plan out everything in advance, and if you try you get deadlocked politically and nothing ends up happening. So you just find the best lever you can to reduce traffic immediately, and just start pressing it. But you warn everyone that you're pressing it, and when you do so you do it slowly.

The reality is that a lot of traffic is simply unnecessary, and dissipates once you add some friction. The most extreme example of that is the rise of remote work during and after Covid. As it turns out, none of these people actually needed to go anywhere.

And more generally, cars induce their own demand simply by virtue of being the fastest and most comfortable option, and they shape the environment around them to depend on them. Small local shops get outcompeted by distant behemoths due it being more convenient to drive. People move to a large house in a distant suburb rather than a small apartment because they know it's just thirty minutes away from work by car anyways. The easier it is to drive, the more entrenched driving becomes. And any way you slice it, undoing that process will cause pain, so you might as well go ahead and start, because you're never going to find a way to prevent the consequences anyway.

[tikhonj]

None of the changes in the comment make owning a car impossible, they just make driving marginally less privileged over walking and biking.

[the_biot]

No, it's worse than that. The city council very much implemented an anti-car (harassment) policy, to the point that car owners felt hounded by their own council's policies. It seriously wasn't a matter of "marginally less privileged".

[TimK65]

Motorists are incredibly fragile. I'm glad Paris has had a mayor who could stand up to their entitled whinging.

[dwedge]

Motorists are an easy scapegoat but without alternatives it's just political handwaving. And most people are motorists.

Take my city for example. I work in an office block around a 15 minute walk from the centre, which has free parking for employees. Monday this week the city announced that the land is now paid parking to the city effective immediately. When it was pointed out they they hadn't provided any of the necessary signage or machines for this, they decided it was illegal to park there at all, with fines and tow trucks for non compliance. An email from them suggested "cycling or using public transport as the weather is nicer".

I cannot stress this enough. No warning, no compromise, no other use for this land, just an immediate draconian announcement.

It's very easy to call another group entitled if you're not one of them

[yulker]

Interesting how correctly naming them motorists sharpens how "the default" is often to be presumed drivers and pedestrians and cyclists are marginal

[stef25]

> Motorists are incredibly fragile

Until you throw yourself in front of my car

[Mawr]

The starting point is anti-anything-but-a-car, so it's understandable that in the process of getting to any sort of parity you'd feel like it's "harassment".

It's like claiming getting rid of slavery is "harassment", because your unfair privileges are being taken back.

[hamdingers]

When one is accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.

[jadyoyster]

Imagine how "hounded" everyone else feels by driver friendly polies in other cities.

[Gud]

The cities were recently reformed to be car-centric(1960s) and can be easily reverted.

All it takes is an understanding how fucked up it is to operate a 2 tonne personal vehicle everywhere you go(if you are able, which most people aren't, legally or mentally), spread the general knowledge and make a long term commitment to public transport, walking and bicycling.

:-)

[jstummbillig]

Honest question: What is the hard part? If you took all of that stuff and did it as quickly as you could somewhere else, what's would be the biggest issue? People + resistance to change of any kind?

The outcome seems so obviously good. I have never heard of anyone complaining about a city becoming less car centric, but maybe somehow it's an under-represented story?

[gotwaz]

Well I sold off my car after realizing I enjoyed the bike ride to work. Then a year later an older family member had a health crisis requiring hospital visits at all possible times of the day and night for many months. Couldnt always rely on cabs and that was the only time I regretted selling the car. But we got through it with friends and fam sharing transport duties. Quite a crazy period so I could imagine it becoming real complicated for certain issues.

[alistairSH]

Effectively NIMBYism, but for cars. The political backlash would stop all progress. People don’t like change, even for the better.

[pizza234]

There are places where car is simply the mean of transport - to the point where using the car is preferred to literally a five minutes walk.

In contexts like this, using a car is perceived as a right - restricting usage doesn't make people think "I'll take the chance to use the bike", rather "How the f*ck do I get there now?".

[apothegm]

The trouble is that the backlash occurs even in places that are pedestrian and transit dominated.

[pandaman]

You have not heard people complaining about cities impeding traffic, likely, because of the bubble you live in. That is the thing that makes regular people to run for the city offices. A whole lot of recent "urbanization" is not going to survive for long because of this IMHO.

[zamadatix]

Paris is consistently somewhere in the top 10 cities worldwide by number of tourists per year and this is an extremely important factor to the city. Even if if Le Monde was writing this in French the impacts to/from tourism would be relevant to the article.

[fsckboy]

>This article has such a weird framing. It keeps repeating how the cleaner air is so good for tourists.

it's not a weird framing, it's a clearly marked travel piece on "CNN Travel"

the French don't read that, they read French newspapers etc.

[dismalaf]

> Paris has not escaped the wrath of the SUV, and a large part of the congestion cities across the world are seeing is solely down to cars becoming bigger.

Europeans don't drive Suburbans. They drive crossovers that are, if anything, shorter than the equivalent sedan or wagon.

[seanmcdirmid]

So do Americans in many cites like Seattle.

[dismalaf]

Fair. When I'm in Canada I do see enough big trucks and SUVs though, versus Paris or Prague (the two places in Europe where I regularly visit/live) where the number is basically zero.

[0xf8]

Agreed the tourist POV center focus is bizarre AF. it’s almost like they were afraid to ask Parisians or even other French natives regularly frequenting Paris what they thought and so they just went with tourists are happy…

[zahlman]

When did the fad for compact cars end? Where did all these SUVs come from? Why do drivers want to lug all this extra weight and space around with them all the time?

[pas]

in the US it has a few factors, one is that trucks are exempted from some mileage requirements, so suddenly manufacturers started making "legally truck" cars

[gostsamo]

The way I've heard it from drivers, suvs gives you elevation to observe the traffic and the mass to make your bad behavior problem of the other side while you gain real numbers safety.

[mitthrowaway2]

That's a pure negative sum game though. The elevation gives you only a relative improvement in visibility if other vehicles don't increase in elevation in response, at the cost of sightlines for other road users and especially pedestrians, unless they wear platform shoes.

The same of course goes with mass.

Usually this kind of negative-sum-prisoner's-dilemma incentive matrix is resolved by government intervention which changes the payoff structure.

[toast0]

Elevation doesn't have to be zero sum. My compact pickup (a class of vehicles that is barely manufactured anymore) is a little elevated and has an upright seating position, but it also provides good visibility for other street users. The space over the bed is clear (unless I'm carrying something big) and the rear and side windows are vertical and clear allowing vision through; the windshield is raked less than most other vehicles, so it's better for looking through.

Of course, as I mentioned, compact pickup trucks are basically dead in the US. You can get a four door car with a three food bed that is marketed as a small truck. If you want a single cab and a six foot bed, you have to buy a full size truck and those are usually taller and bigger and less efficient than a compact truck would be; it can do bigger truck things, but I only need little truck things.

Maybe the Bezos truck brings back small trucks to the US.

[aidenn0]

A big part of the issue is styling:

I was next to a GMC pickup on my bike the other day at a stoplight. When I stood up, the hood was roughly shoulder-height for me. They can easily make the hood at least a foot shorter (and probably more) and still fit everything under the hood, or even go with a cab-forward design.

But people think those look dorky.

At the extreme end of things, it's hard to argue they are wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oshkosh_NGDV

[toast0]

The NGDV is dorky as hell. But I bet they're very effective for drivers.

I've got an old cabover passenger van, visibility for me is pretty good, but if you were next to it on a bike, you wouldn't be able to see over the hood cause there isn't one.

It's also pretty dorky, but it's got essentially a porsche engine, which makes it a rear engined mid-life crisis sports car. I have to run it at red line for 30+ seconds to get up to freeway speed...

[gostsamo]

Well, in the absence of government, it is pure profit for the suv driver and for the car manufacturer who sells higher margin product. And fuck the pedestrians and those in smaller cars.

[yulker]

the default car should have been a one person car. we split a normal one lane into two narrow lanes.

[kube-system]

In some places it is

https://adventure.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Hero-Gettin...

[II2II]

Things I noticed right off the bat: framing it as a tourist verses locals issue, a complete lack of numbers backing that claim, and the few numbers presented in the article have any context. I realize this is a travel article, but it seems to be more of a propaganda piece.

Take the claim that the locals hate the changes. Well, the mayor was reelected. So they claim the voter turnout was low and people were complaining, so people obviously don't support it. Sorry, you can't make that conclusion. Under ordinary circumstances, 100% turnout would only tell you the overall support for a particular candidate or party, not a particular policy. A low turnout may reflect an electorate who is not particularly passionate in any of the issues presented in the election, or it may mean something else. It was probably something else in the 2020 elections because those were anything but ordinary: they fell during the peak of pandemic uncertainty (i.e. March to June). So a flimsy assertion based upon flimsy evidence.

Then there are the scanty numbers without context. A 4% increase in traffic jams since 2015 and 31% decline in bus use between 2018 and 2024. First of all, the words "bus use" sounds highly selective. It looks like the Paris metro has been expanding and modernizing rapidly in recent years, which would both take load off of busses and be disruptive to transit users. Oh, and that pandemic thing raises its head again. I don't know about Paris, but a lot of cities took a hit to transit ridership during the pandemic and some are claiming to reach pre-pandemic levels only now. Also, cyclists tend to be the whipping boy for traffic congestion. I can't speak for Paris, but the reality in my parts are that population growth and a surge in construction have been far more disruptive than cycling infrastructure.

Sorry about the rant, but I'm sick and tired of the views of one segment of the population completely overriding the views of another segment of the population ... especially when there are assertions based upon assumptions and flimsy evidence.

[stackghost]

>But tourists visiting Paris for a week don’t get the majority of the benefit from cleaner air.

First impressions matter, though.

When you fly into e.g. New York and they pop the door open you get that whiff of exhaust fumes. The city reeks.

Vancouver on the other hand it smells like the ocean.

Any improvement of air quality does matter for tourists and residents.

[goldenarm]

Travelers are more sensitive to sudden changes. I got sick in Sicily on day one of my vacation because of how bad the air was.

[dfxm12]

Cleaner air is still good for tourists & the article is part of the Travel section of this publication.

[bluGill]

Tourists get the majority of the benefit because residents of paris are smoking which is makes clear air not really a benifiet for them.

I thought the above needed a /s, but a check shows 30% of the people in France smoke. (I can't find city stastics)

[stefs]

i kinda seem to remember that this is a bit misleading and the rates are surprisingly different than expected. i'm too lazy to check the sources right now, but gemini gives me a 15% daily smoker rate for paris, while it's ~30% for detroit, 21% for philadelphia, 10% for new york, 5% for L.A.

[dwg465]

I mean it’s a “CNN Travel” article…of course it’s going to focus on Paris as a travel destination.

[stingraycharles]

> But tourists visiting Paris for a week don’t get the majority of the benefit from cleaner air.

You’re missing the point: tourists are good for the city. If Paris gets a reputation of being polluted, tourism will decline.

[bluesounddirect]

I agree, CNN has always had a weird angle to its bias. I am by no means a FOX news nut . I really think a lot of american "news" now is similar to How The WWF ( World Wide Wrestling Federation/ World Wrestling Entertainment) isn't a Sport. CNN , FOX, MSNBC/MSNOW , Newsmax etc aren't news but unfunny entertainment.