A letter to Square

[SkyeWindbinder]

Seriously, whether the guy says he's "speaking for others" or not, I htink his info is well researched and he gave his opinion based on quite a few facts. Many of his points might prove a bit hard to disprove. I mean, there's no one way to give an editorial. The fact of the matter is, he had a lot of good points, and a lot of people agreed with what he had to say. I know I did.

[Abriael]

Seriously, whether the guy says he's "speaking for others" or not, I htink his info is well researched and he gave his opinion based on quite a few facts. Many of his points might prove a bit hard to disprove. I mean, there's no one way to give an editorial. The fact of the matter is, he had a lot of good points, and a lot of people agreed with what he had to say. I know I did.

Agreement is no proof of validity. Journalism isn't an election (as much as some definitely interpret it as such, and their articles are more pseudo-political and demagogic for the sake of personal popularity than anything else) A lot of people agreed with the maya doomsday theories, and we're still here.

There's no one way to create editorial content of course. There's the solid way based on facts and balance, and there's the hyperbolic way based on alarmism, fanboyism, negativity bias, fearmongering and false/warped information.

One of the best examples of the second kind is what you can define "pandering to the rage", to which pretty much both videos linked in this thread belong (the first a bit less, the second a lot more). It's a very easy and cheap tactic that consists in encouraging and agreeing with the most enraged/irrational areas of the reader/viewer base in order to catalyze the negativity and gain quick consensus while fanning the flames of ire and controversy, no matter if the positions expressed have any degree of validity or not.

The first is legit journalism, the second is tabloid scribbling. If you want to base your perception of the industry on the second you're free and entitled to do so (it's more controversial, and many absolutely love controversy), but that view will be as warped as its source.

To each their own.

[Denmo]

I really don't think that celebrating what was good with SE, criticizing what was bad, and asking for more good, is "pandering to the rage".

But hey, to each their own.


(And yeah, that's a cop out. )

[SkyeWindbinder]

Agreement is no proof of validity. Journalism isn't an election (as much as some definitely interpret it as such, and their articles are more pseudo-political and demagogic for the sake of personal popularity than anything else) A lot of people agreed with the maya doomsday theories, and we're still here.

There's no one way to create editorial content of course. There's the solid way based on facts and balance, and there's the hyperbolic way based on alarmism, fanboyism, negativity bias, fearmongering and false/warped information.

One of the best examples of the second kind is what you can define "pandering to the rage", to which pretty much both videos linked in this thread belong (the first a bit less, the second a lot more). It's a very easy and cheap tactic that consists in encouraging and agreeing with the most enraged/irrational areas of the reader/viewer base in order to catalyze the negativity and gain quick consensus while fanning the flames of ire and controversy, no matter if the positions expressed have any degree of validity or not.

The first is legit journalism, the second is tabloid scribbling. If you want to base your perception of the industry on the second you're free and entitled to do so (it's more controversial, and many absolutely love controversy), but that view will be as warped as its source.

To each their own.

Well, why don't you try writing or speaking an editorial of your own disproving the guy's claims? I mean, it's one thing to call an editor's words or expressed opinions "cheap tactics", but in reality, that's just an opinion. If something the guy said was blatantly wrong, then try telling everyone what it was, ans give us the sources that disprove the guy? Otherwise, you end up seeming like you're simply raging at someone for no reason other than you don't like what they had to say.