It is one of my favourite (probably apocryphal) newspaper stories. The editor of a tabloid paper calls in his resident astrologer. “Your predictions are rubbish,” he says. “I’m sorry, but you’re fired.” The astrologer looks ashen. In a faltering voice, she says: “But I never saw this coming.” “And that’s the problem!” replied the editor, triumphantly.
I was reminded of this story yesterday by the trickle of emails wanting to know why we don’t have horoscopes. It’s not because we are sceptical that the alignment of Uranus and Mars will cause Sagittarians to miss their bus home (although that seems a good enough reason to me). It’s because we feel a daily horoscope would be a luxury in a concise paper, the format of which forces us to be selective about what we choose to include.
Nevertheless, we did foresee a need to satisfy all you Zodiac zealots, so turn to page 30 to learn the truth about star signs. In any case, you can’t have horoscopes because, before you know it, you’ll then have pictures of people’s pets. Oops. As you can see from the photo below, we’ve already lost that battle. Reader Marie Greenhalgh writes from Burnley: “As a new reader and number one fan of i, I wasn’t at all surprised to find my cocker spaniel Amy sneaking a peek when I nipped away for a coffee. She doesn’t just read any paper, you know!” Well done, Marie. And Amy. You must be a Scorpio!
Simon KelnerReuse content