It has a low journalism factor. When one writes an article, it’s important to deliver to the reader certain facts right away; who’s involved, setting, etc.
This article starts with “a podcast” and then doesn’t say which one. It then goes on for a while not giving the reader who isn’t privy to the background any relevant context. So we’re left having to re-read the whole thing twice just to parse what the fuck it’s about.
I think it’s trash because it starts with the “story” being “someone said this outrageous thing on a podcast”. Then the “both sides” counter argument is from actual medical professionals and people who have a clue.
Typically, journalism frames an issue and then covers some counterpoints to give some nuance. This time, they (bewilderingly) accept conspiracy theory nonsense as their story (when it shouldn’t have been written in the first place), then the sanity comes in as though it’s a counter point.
This article is trash.
Yea it’s not the best. but it’s calling out lies so I figured it was worth sharing.
Because it refutes a bunch of lies? Is that why it’s trash?
It has a low journalism factor. When one writes an article, it’s important to deliver to the reader certain facts right away; who’s involved, setting, etc.
This article starts with “a podcast” and then doesn’t say which one. It then goes on for a while not giving the reader who isn’t privy to the background any relevant context. So we’re left having to re-read the whole thing twice just to parse what the fuck it’s about.
Trash writing.
I think it’s trash because it starts with the “story” being “someone said this outrageous thing on a podcast”. Then the “both sides” counter argument is from actual medical professionals and people who have a clue.
Typically, journalism frames an issue and then covers some counterpoints to give some nuance. This time, they (bewilderingly) accept conspiracy theory nonsense as their story (when it shouldn’t have been written in the first place), then the sanity comes in as though it’s a counter point.