I was reading this article in the NYTimes this morning and it was fairly stupid. Not aggressively stupid but clearly a waste of time. It was supposed to be about the fact that there's a limit of 5000 on the number of friends you can have on Facebook and how some people are dealing with that. And that's about all the story. Repeated the fact from the headline. Told us that Facebook wouldn't say why there was a limit. Included lots of quips from celebrity types who are at or near the friends limit. And allowed the writer to make lots of snarky comments about the sort of people who waste time on Facebook (obviously meant to remind us that she was not the sort of person who wastes time on Facebook "updating" her "status" for her "friends.") Yeah, it was just that good.
Which raises the question: why did I read it? A perfectly reasonable question and one I'm not sure I've got the answer to just yet. I mean, I've spent enough time reading the NYTimes by now that I can spot what's likely to be a pretty stupid article just from the headline and blurb. Sure, you can say that by starting to read, I'm refusing to make a pre-judgement based on limited information. I'm being open to the possibility that something good might happen. Yeah, right. But, no... It might be the triumph of hope over experience. But I suspect it's more likely some sort of literary masochism. I read these things knowing they'll suck so that I can confirm my opinion of the debased state of journalism and newspaper writing in the early 21st century.