you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

I feel like this article is the exactly the kind of tripe it complains about.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (13 children)

Did you read it? I think the author was stating that specifically in their opinion, most media of any kind(they mention Internet), is more money driven, than truth, or informational driven.

QUOTE: "When writing is a money-making exercise devoid of editorial standards or ethics, every word is part of a business strategy designed to yield as much profit as possible."

QUOTE: "The pursuit of profit at all cost explains the endless slew of filler content flooding every corner of the internet"

So how does this article match, or mimic what it complains about, o calls out?

Off of that, I was just watching one of the evening news programs. I noted everything was 'breaking news'; although by Internet standards, it was 'yesterday's stories'... My point in mentioning this, is that it is somewhat on par with the article in the OP.... To state breaking news, when most people realize it's old news, is on par with fake news, and attempting to con people to stay tuned in for simple advertising numbers(which is the reason they're on the air).

[–]HopeThatHalps 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

word popcorn.

The latter is pieces that contain more air and blank space than substance or words for easy, guilt-free bingeing that won’t clog up your brain.

This article is filled with more air than a beach ball. It's like a 1,000 word essay with maybe 50 words worth of actual thought.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

Right, so no reading comprehension, just lowly digs at a not too bad article; glad I've got a clear view of where you're coming from.

Note to add: I assume anything that's over X amount of words isn't worth your time; patience, and comprehension is above many people's time.

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

What evidence do you have that I couldn't comprehend the article?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

You don't engage in the article other than basically stating,'it sucks'.

I can comprehend not liking how something is written; yet if there's a grain of 'merit' to what they're trying to convey, why do you write it's 'tripe', or then go onto demean it by way of length?

The premise that most media content, or even content producers across the net, do so only for rewards, and gains, has solid merit to myself.

I donno, what's the point in knocking something just because? Do you make a point of 'triping' things just because?

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

I can comprehend not liking how something is written; yet if there's a grain of 'merit' to what they're trying to convey, why do you write it's 'tripe', or then go onto demean it by way of length?

For one thing, it says disingenuous content is ubiquitous, and yet it doesn't cite a single example.

The premise that most media content, or even content producers across the net, do so only for rewards, and gains, has solid merit to myself.

"most"? I don't see the case made that "most" content is of that variety. Maybe "a lot" is, but again, not a single concrete example.

I donno, what's the point in knocking something just because? Do you make a point of 'triping' things just because?

Because it's shit and I expect better, especially if it's linked on saidit. The general theme of the word salad is that fluff content, lacking of real substance, is pedled just to get clicks, and that's exactly what this article comes across as.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Wow, okay, you said, ''The general theme of the word salad is that fluff content, lacking of real substance, is pedled just to get clicks, and that's exactly what this article comes across as."

I just didn't get that feeling with the article. I actually see many people on this website demanding 'high quality links'(who determines?), and squabbling over the very thing that I saw outlined in the article. To myself, what was outlined is the idea that the talking point narratives as laid out by the MSM for the day, or week, or time period is regurgitated by most across all media; rather than looking for their own original content..

I guess we each get what we want, or need out of any material subjectively; where one sees lemons, another see's the base for lemonade. Awesomeness!

[–]HopeThatHalps 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I would forgive the lack of structure if they gave at least a few real example, such as linking to some fake blog posts with links to Amazon products, and showing that it is plagiarized from another. To not even cite an example really undercuts the idea that it's ubiquitous. It's like saying unicorns are so common I couldnt even be bothered to take a picture of the last one I saw.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

It amazes me at how every post you make, for the most part, I saw/see something entirely different in the OP, or preceding post. I guess entirely different outlooks in life.

In summary, you state the article is 'lacking', while I think it's alright, and conveyed something. Isn't subjective outlook amazing.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Woah woah woah. Why did you have to be the first one to resort to ad hominem?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Only 5 instances of "I" or "me" in the article.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What's the significance of that?

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Apart from maybe two paragraphs, it rules out one of the "kind[s] of tripe it complains about".

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

There's no central thesis, it just meanders. The talk of fake personal testimony is just one example of content plagiarism that it vaguely touches on.

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

There's no central thesis

it has one.

[–]HopeThatHalps 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is it?

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again, to myself, they're pointing out how everyone regurgitates the same information, rather than struggling to find their own perhaps unique niche. Now that's what I got from it, but I can see you think the article is crap, you've not minced words on it. I guess the glass is half empty to some, and half full to others. Thanks for communicating.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I will grant that it's not well-written, though I'm no critic of literature.