Tuesday, December 29, 2009

The decade in a nutshell...

Here we go again. Just as the media got the "turn of the century" wrong, they are at it again with the "end of the decade." It always fascinates me how the general public is fascinated with dates that end in "0" as being something important --- like God is a power of ten kind of guy.

Think of it; the first year was year 1. There was no year 0. So the first ten years were 1-10. And the second decade began with year 11. When you carry this forward you see that the second century started with year 101. And so forth. The last year of the 20th century was 2000. And the 21st century began with Jan. 1, 2001.

The media got this mostly wrong, although a few places noted the discrepancy. The straight thinkers were swept way by the tsunami of "it ends in 0" advocates. This will happen again now with the "passing of the first decade of the 21st century" (sic). Since the last year of the first decade is 2010, they have jumped the gun by twelve months!

How can we trust the media, who gets something as simple as this wrong, to report the complexities of the news right? What became of the news reportors who could actually report news without offering their personal opinions? Indeed, what become of teachers in journalism class who could teach journalism instead of propaganda? I guess I grew up in a different world.

So, roll with the tide. Just remember that they are simply wrong, about virtually everything, no less! It's your safest position to take.

It comes to my attention (only took three days) that a decade can be ANY ten year period, starting and stopping anytime you want. So, 1997-2006 is a decade. However, I still think the "it ends in 0 and is therefore notable" crowd is nutty. And it becomes definitely wrong when ordinal numbers are used: the century's first decade is 2001-2010. Period. Anyway, it's nice to know there is an "out."

No comments:

Post a Comment