Columns

I just wasted six minutes of my life reading the column at the back of the Times Magazine. I don't usually read columns. Why do I want to hear what some journalist has been doing or thinking this week when what I've been doing or thinking, or what I can imagine someone else doing or thinking, is much more interesting?

But today I happened to have a copy of the paper, and the magazine happened to fall open. I'd already read Giles Coren, so I thought, why not give this guy a go. I've actually read his column before (I think that was what put me off columns in the first place). He was rubbish last time, but why not give him a second chance?

Because he was rubbish again. That's why.

He told some terrible 'story' about how his friends once only had decaffeinated coffee in their cupboards. That was it. That was his story.
Erm, excuse me, that's not a story. How did this guy dare present that as something worth reading? And how did the editor agree to put it in?

This is the problem with newspapers - especially at weekends. There's nothing in them but miles and miles of columns by idiots who think we're interested in their natty little lives. It's a waste of paper, and a waste of time.

It's even more of a waste of time when you spend an extra six minutes ranting about it on a weblog.