4 ms·

This is 'Long Form Journalism'. The 'dip in, dip out' paragraph structure is a dead giveaway. Not always what you're looking for but it can be a good way of cr

This is 'Long Form Journalism'. The 'dip in, dip out' paragraph structure is a dead giveaway. Not always what you're looking for but it can be a good way of cracking into a subject you're unfamiliar with, or a good way of merging the human element with something that would otherwise be quite dry. By no means a substitute for regular news, but a good complement to it.

eplanit 6y ago
"but a good complement to it" Clearly a matter of opinion whether it's good.
TwoBit 6y ago
> it can be a good way of cracking into a subject You mean it can be a good way of stretching an article to fit more ads and increase monetization.
- dougmwne 6y ago
  I think it is actually optimized for print magazines where someone can be expected to dip in and out when they have a few minutes on the couch and the publisher has a set number of pages to fill. It's not as well suited to the internet where 25 words surrounded by 10 ads seems to be the norm and 5 minutes is an eternity.
- FooHentai 6y ago
  I don't disagree but national geographic, time, and now the same formats transposed into the online world all have their place. They can act as fantastic springboards into underlying news, scientific research, and other further reading in a way that's similar to but far more engaging than a dry wikipedia article.
ReptileMan 6y ago
The problem is not the long form per se, but its misuse. Since usually journalists try to implant human interest stories etc where they don't fit. Long form is good if you have something long to say. Trying to construct a story where there isn't one frustrates the reader. I enjoy in depth exposes, but I don't need the alice, bob and malory viewpoint anchoring. This is my general attitude towards this style of writing, not this specific piece.
- paganel 6y ago
  Related to unnecessary words inside a newspaper/magazine article, this interview [1] with Georges Simenon is the best example of why those articles look like crap (at least for people like me, I do realize that there are other people with different tastes): > Just one piece of general advice from a writer has been very useful to me. It was from Colette. I was writing short stories for Le Matin, and Colette was literary editor at that time. I remember I gave her two short stories and she returned them and I tried again and tried again. Finally she said, “Look, it is too literary, always too literary.” So I followed her advice. It’s what I do when I write, the main job when I rewrite > I: What do you cut out, certain kinds of words? > Adjectives, adverbs, and every word which is there just to make an effect. Every sentence which is there just for the sentence. You know, you have a beautiful sentence—cut it. Every time I find such a thing in one of my novels it is to be cut. [1] https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5020/the-art-of-fiction-no-9-georges-simenon https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5020/the-art-of-fi...

eplanit 6y ago

"but a good complement to it" Clearly a matter of opinion whether it's good.

TwoBit 6y ago

> it can be a good way of cracking into a subject You mean it can be a good way of stretching an article to fit more ads and increase monetization.

dougmwne 6y ago
I think it is actually optimized for print magazines where someone can be expected to dip in and out when they have a few minutes on the couch and the publisher has a set number of pages to fill. It's not as well suited to the internet where 25 words surrounded by 10 ads seems to be the norm and 5 minutes is an eternity.
FooHentai 6y ago
I don't disagree but national geographic, time, and now the same formats transposed into the online world all have their place. They can act as fantastic springboards into underlying news, scientific research, and other further reading in a way that's similar to but far more engaging than a dry wikipedia article.

ReptileMan 6y ago

The problem is not the long form per se, but its misuse. Since usually journalists try to implant human interest stories etc where they don't fit. Long form is good if you have something long to say. Trying to construct a story where there isn't one frustrates the reader. I enjoy in depth exposes, but I don't need the alice, bob and malory viewpoint anchoring. This is my general attitude towards this style of writing, not this specific piece.

paganel 6y ago
Related to unnecessary words inside a newspaper/magazine article, this interview [1] with Georges Simenon is the best example of why those articles look like crap (at least for people like me, I do realize that there are other people with different tastes): > Just one piece of general advice from a writer has been very useful to me. It was from Colette. I was writing short stories for Le Matin, and Colette was literary editor at that time. I remember I gave her two short stories and she returned them and I tried again and tried again. Finally she said, “Look, it is too literary, always too literary.” So I followed her advice. It’s what I do when I write, the main job when I rewrite > I: What do you cut out, certain kinds of words? > Adjectives, adverbs, and every word which is there just to make an effect. Every sentence which is there just for the sentence. You know, you have a beautiful sentence—cut it. Every time I find such a thing in one of my novels it is to be cut. [1] https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5020/the-art-of-fiction-no-9-georges-simenon https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/5020/the-art-of-fi...