Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He is so lazy. If you are going to do media criticism, name names. He has perfected a way of writing that makes it impossible to figure out who he is talking about -- his blog says he is reporting, but he "reports" nothing here. If he had to pay to use passive constructions, he'd be bankrupt. "The media has devolved." "We are told." "Subjects are abruptly dropped and forgotten." "The tone remains." "It's been learned." "We may freely misreport reality." "It was okay to publish." "MSNBC could put." And so on.
I can't figure out who he's talking about. TV, I think.
|
1. The names would fill volumes. But also, he does name names. And when he does, you assert he’s bringing too many disparate sources together.
But that’s how it works. A person like like PLF is peppered from various angles, like his counterpart Fox viewer.
2. The media has devolved. Right and left. It’s garbage all around. The right is just dumber. You seem to value the credulous who think they’re smart above the generally credulous. That’s understandable when they’re driving your Uber, but here?
3. Taibbi almost never uses the passive. He’s been driven to it. If you doubt me, there’s more than enough of his work to review. This is always your technique, by the way, and you complain about it as much as you use it.
If you’re cornered, you’ll demand an impossible quantum of empirical or specific proof. When slammed with empirical and specific proof, you’ll become petulant and dodge. Flower’s a child in many regards, but I’ll offer him this: He’ll admit when he’s wrong. Twenty years on, you’ll give Trump a run for his money. I’m not sure which of the two of you would do that first.
