Comment by lupire
4 years ago
Communication is about co: sharing information that is wanted to be sent and wanted to be received. Readers aren't meant to be a captive audience for shaggy dog tales. The article is on the review of Journalism website, not a storytelling website.
Overpacking a story with junk (how ironic!) makes it harder to spread the important ideas of the article, which hurts the author's goal.
Different people like different things. Rather than assuming the author, the editor, and various other reviewers are all idiots, perhaps consider that you are not representative of their typical audience.
That's a good point. I feel like there's essentially two groups: those that want the information and are annoyed by the stories, and those who want the stories. I don't know whether they'd read the article if it didn't come with a somewhat relatable story.
Unfortunately, many large media companies have adopted the story-first-facts-second strategy. Are those who prefer otherwise such a tiny minority?
To me, these articles look like those SEO recipe sites that are stuffed with random content because Google won't rank them as well if they just provided what the user is looking for.
> there's essentially two groups: those that want the information and are annoyed by the stories, and those who want the stories
This assumes information can always be cleanly severed from the story. That strikes me like cutting a paper down to the abstract and conclusion. Yes, the methods may be tedious to get through, but someone with an understanding of them sees the problem with more depth.
3 replies →
Indeed. To me, it's the age-old form vs function dichotomy. I have resigned myself long ago to the fact that most people choose form over function every time.
I found it's very liberating to consciously decide "this isn't intended for me" and focus my attention elsewhere. Still, it's very easy to lower my guard and fall into the mindless consumer trap again. But it's an indulgence, and I try to limit my intake.
Valid point! Oddly enough, I'd rather read a bunch of comments _about_ the alleged article than actually _read the article_.
Perhaps if someone wrote a blog in nested-comment style I would read it.
Fun though experiment: could Harry Potter be rewritten in comment style?
Oh, you know the author's goal? Likewise, if it was published on the site - arguably the curators read the article and approved it - but because it doesn't fit your own expectations of the only kind of content you want there, then it's inappropriate? That sounds like gatekeeping and perhaps perfectionism.