I read an article today which, for just a split second, made me wonder if it was merely attempting to be satirical for how awful the content really was. I'll let you read the article first. It can be viewed here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-kerpen/why-stephen-colbert-is-mo_b_868471.html
That's right, ladies and gentlemen. As of May 30th of 2011, it can be stated that likability is determined by the quantity of one's Twitter followers. Jon Stewart doesn't have a personal Twitter account, so in its absence, it can be matter-of-factly stated that Stephen Colbert is the more likable of the two.
So, that's what it's come to, eh folks? Tweets? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. I watch their shows rather religiously, but I'm not going to be so asinine as to judge their likability on their Twitter followers.
How far will this go? Do we determine Emmy winners based on the number of Twitter followers each show has? Grammy winners? Oscar winners?
What, in the 2012 Presidential Election, are we going to decide the winner based on how many followers the two candidates have on their Twitter accounts?
"This is Brian Williams with NBC News. It's now official. Sarah Palin has won the 2012 Presidential Election by collecting 49,327,914 Twitter followers. Barack Obama's tweets were few and far between and due to his being president at the time and having a great number of responsibilities on his plate, he was unable to close the gap with the former half-term Governor of Alaska, whom seemed to have a great deal of time on her hands in which to attend to her Facebook and Twitter accounts on a very regular basis."
The next time I garner an interest in a woman and if she proposes the question, "Would others say that you're likable?," I'll have to pause for a moment and think, "Crap! I no longer have a Twitter account. I'm royally tweeted!"
Comments
Post a Comment