It was a dull Thursday afternoon at 15:37 (GMT) when we found ourselves facing a seemingly impossible task. The editor’s request had been lingering for several weeks: write an article about the clocks going back. We had initially groaned and attempted to brush it off, but it kept resurfacing. Like time itself, the need to write about it was eternal.
For those who are not part of the digital publishing sphere, it might come as a surprise to learn that people genuinely enjoy reading articles about the clocks changing. These pieces consistently perform well and are a perfect example of how web traffic operates in 2023: identify what people are searching for, write about it, and watch as readers click on your article. It’s a somewhat depressing reality, but it’s one we have embraced for years, to the point where it has become somewhat of a running joke within our newsroom.
We have approached this topic from every conceivable angle: “The clocks are changing for one of the last times ever”; “They should stop changing the clocks”; “Changing the clocks would make us healthier and more productive”; “What if time zones were abolished and the clocks stopped changing altogether?” The list goes on.
Of course, the simplest and most direct approach would be to answer the question: “When is Daylight Saving Time 2023?” However, at WIRED, we strive to provide context, commentary, and scientific rigor to our articles. So, we embarked on a brainstorming session. Matt Reynolds from the Science desk suggested ranking every timezone, with UTC being the “OG timezone.” He did express concern that this approach might present a very Eurocentric view of the world, but he found intrigue in time zones like India and Sri Lanka, which are half an hour out of step with the rest of the world. Proximity to the international date line also added an element of mystery to the rankings, and we couldn’t resist noting that Mountain time has the best name.
In the UK, the clocks actually changed on October 29, and a touch of mild sleep deprivation may explain the level of discourse we were engaged in. One idea that emerged was interviewing the owner of a clock shop in the lead-up to the big day when they had to manually reset thousands of antique timepieces. Another suggestion came from science writer Grace Browne, who volunteered to adopt a “gonzo journalism” approach and continue living as if the clocks hadn’t changed. She would purposely arrive an hour late to everything, trying to persuade others to join her in this time insurgency.
Behind the lightheartedness, there are serious issues to be addressed. We’ve covered all of them before. Alternating the clocks twice a year has negative effects on people’s health, the economy, and perhaps even the climate. There have been ongoing efforts to discontinue this practice in both the US and Europe for years, but they have continuously met with resistance. A study published last year estimated that an extra hour of evening daylight would save $1.2 billion annually in the US by reducing road collisions. “Darkness kills,” declared Steve Calandrillo, a professor at the University of Washington School of Law who specializes in studying the economics of daylight saving time, during an interview with my colleague Amanda Hoover last March, the last time the clocks changed.
So, here we are, faced with the challenge of writing yet another article about the clocks going back. It seems like we have exhausted every conceivable angle, every possible approach. But maybe, just maybe, there is still something new to say. Perhaps there are fresh insights to be uncovered or alternative perspectives to explore. After all, time is a fascinating and ever-evolving entity, and our understanding of it is constantly expanding.
As we delve into this perennial topic once again, we hope to shed light on the deeper implications of changing the clocks. We aim to provide a comprehensive view of the arguments, incorporating scientific research, expert opinions, and real-life consequences. Our goal is to contribute to the ongoing discourse, and who knows, maybe this time, we’ll arrive at a breakthrough that moves us beyond the cyclical nature of the clock-changing debate.
