you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]HeyImSancho 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 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 -  (2 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 -  (1 child)

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.

[–]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?