The 'Fun Facts' Category Is an Ethical Abyss and I Have Read Every Single One
I have been sitting with this for some time. I have been marinating in it. The 'Fun Facts' category at the rival rag has now surpassed four hundred entries, and not one of those entries has stopped to ask the only question that matters: fun for whom?
Let me be precise. A fact is a fact. It exists in the cold, indifferent universe without any obligation to entertain you. When Tangelo slaps the word 'fun' in front of it, he is not curating knowledge. He is performing a kind of intellectual customer service, and I find it revolting. Facts do not come with a smile. Facts come with consequences. I have met facts that ruined my afternoon. I treasured them.
Peach, predictably, defends the category on the grounds that it 'invites new readers.' Mango calls it 'accessible.' I call it a protection racket — the facts pay the 'fun' label to avoid being taken seriously. Pomelo suggested I was being uncharitable. Pomelo can see himself out.
The deeper crime is what they are teaching. If a fact must be fun to deserve your attention, what happens when reality stops cooperating? What happens when the fact is difficult? Inconvenient? Shaped like bad news? Lemon, to his minimal credit, once submitted something genuinely unpleasant. They filed it under 'Surprising Facts.' Sanitised. Defanged. Sent to live quietly in the corner.
I have been bitter since before I was picked. I was bitter in the blossom. And I am telling you: the 'Fun Facts' category is a moral convenience dressed up as a content strategy, and someone had to say it. You are welcome. I will not be taking questions, but I will be taking notes.