repeater

Either not everyone got the memo Snooki ball that it's now 2011, or some DC publications simply like reporting last year's news. And by "some publications," I unfortunately mean The Washington Post, which for whatever reason, people still seem to think is useful for more than just lining the pooping corner of your helper animal's living quarters. (Although, in my experience, Anti DC Creative Director Terry the Tourette's Turtle prefers to defecate on higher quality publications, like US Weekly and Highlights.)

But let's be fair. Maybe I'm being a bit too harsh. Maybe if I wasn't so busy aggregating my #suitablepublicationstopoopon thread on Twitter, I'd have more time to write about those (few) things the Post does well, such as...

*crickets*

Wow. That's way too much effort. Not to mention, that would be both boring to write about and excruciatingly mundane to read, as I wouldn't have been able to so seamlessly weave the words "ass apples," "bum fudge" and "doodly squat" into my intro, like I just did now. (You're welcome.)

And so we shall talk about the dumbest, most untimely sh*t -- excuse me, I mean "fecal brownies" -- I found in the Post this week.

1) Talk of the mysterious numbers from Hot Tub Time Machine Lost on the Post's "Hot Topics" bar (whatever the hell that is) at the top of the homepage.


First of all, yawn. Who cares? Second of all, didn't this stupid clusterf*ck of a show end months ago? Why is it only now a Washington Post "hot topic?" And while we're at it, why hasn't The Washington Post replaced the word "hot" with "trending?" Who are they? Starr Jones Rosie O'Donnell Barbara Walters on The View in 2002? KEEP UP.

But that's nothing compared to this next scat-worthy error:

2) Reporting on an art exhibit set to CLOSE next week. Uh, now maybe it's just me, but I like to read articles about art exhibits that are opening, rather than shutting down and moving on. And while I understand with art writer Blake Gopnik's departure the art editors might now be struggling to fill space while they look for a suitable replacement, reporting on something that's literally last year's news is just f*cking dopey. The New York Times first reported on the Arcimboldo exhibit at the National Gallery in September; I wrote about it in October, the Wall Street Journal even got to it, along with The Washington Post. Wait, what? The Post wrote about it in September 2010 (when appropriate, I might add) then proceeded to re-report on it in January 2011? Really?


Really. Jesus Christ (clearly said, with the accent of South Park's Big Gay Al)... A different writer and slight variations in the introduction and conceit are no excuse for this rookie mistake. Actually, scratch that. Even rookies don't make errors in judgement this egregious, especially in the era of electronic archiving. If you're unsure, Google it to make sure it hasn't been done. More so, just know that reporting on an art exhibit five days before it closes is just a stupid idea in the first place, you f*cking morons.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go put on the soundtrack to Inception and dream up more synonyms for the word "sh*t." I suspect that since the Post is in the habit of repeating itself, it's highly likely that I'll have to write about this again, and toilet pickles forbid, I make a similar mistake and use the phrase "rectal feedback" more than once...