The information given by digital newspapers about the reading time of their articles continues to surprise me. I wonder if the one-minute or five-minute reads are more appealing? Articles read in a minute are worthless and articles worth 5 are a gem and vice versa, so reading time shouldn’t count when it comes to dealing with them. It should not be a criterion. So I’m wondering about the usefulness of this information. I spend the time it takes to eat a banana from the Canary Islands, I go to the fruit shop and look at the peel. It’s not coming. Nor is it the time it takes to digest an avocado from Almería. Digestion would be interesting, you know? Brain activity slows down while digesting. If you’re planning to write a great poem this afternoon, avoid overly heavy fruit. They are incompatible with genius.
Meanwhile, a one-minute article, if it’s good, can take a month to digest, while a half-hour report, if it’s bad, can be digested before it’s finished. This means that digital newspapers need to report more than reading time, digestion time which is really helpful. In any case, what we see most worrying about people is time in general, as if it were our lack. If humanity has one thing, it’s time. In fact, spades are wasted. All you have to do is look at the statistics of the hours we spend in front of the TV. There are a lot of them, almost all of them have disappeared.
I say to my psychoanalyst:
-Actually, if we have enough of something, the time has come.
-What is that? -says she.
-I saw what it was like to read an article in a digital newspaper and it bothered me.
-How much did he put?
-One minute.
-One minute?
Yes, but it takes two hours to digest.
-How heavy are your items? He asks without mocking.
Here I am, getting off the couch and leaving the office without saying goodbye. Your 50 minutes are worth 70 Euros. You shouldn’t waste a second on such jokes.