3 ms·

> My take: it doesn't actually quote SSC, what a failure. > https://howthehell.substack.com/p/nyt-ssc-quoting https://howthehell.substack.com/p/nyt-ssc-quoting

by ardy42 6y ago

> My take: it doesn't actually quote SSC, what a failure. > https://howthehell.substack.com/p/nyt-ssc-quoting https://howthehell.substack.com/p/nyt-ssc-quoting Am I reading that right? It complains the article didn't actually quote SSC, then contradicts itself by listing ten actual quotes from SSC that are in the article, and then lists ten other quotes that he happens to particularly like (one of which is a dreamlike thing that appears to be from some fiction). I kinda get the impression the author of that blog post would have been satisfied with nothing less than something that read like it was written by an enthusiastic fan.

PoignardAzur 6y ago
> then contradicts itself by listing ten actual quotes from SSC that are in the article Hum, your definition of quote is very generous to the NYT, given than most of the 10 list items you mention are four words long or less.
- ardy42 6y ago
  > Hum, your definition of quote is very generous to the NYT, given than most of the 10 list items you mention are four words long or less. A quote that is not a blockquote is still a quote.
  - da_big_ghey 6y ago
    Eight of those ten are not even complete sentences, let alone "not blockquotes". Every quote need not be a complete sentence or paragraph, but including almost none strikes me as poor journalism. A good writer would include a bit more information and give Alexander's statements a chance to speak for themselves.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Eight of those ten are not even complete sentences, let alone "not blockquotes". A quote that is not a complete sentence is still a quote. > Every quote need not be a complete sentence or paragraph, but including almost none strikes me as poor journalism. A good writer would include a bit more information and give Alexander's statements a chance to speak for themselves. The kind of journalism that has lots of long quotes like that is called an interview. This article was not an interview, nor could it have possibly been, because Scott Alexander refused to be interviewed. It's incredibly weak to criticize something for not happening to be the random thing you decided it should be instead. You might as well criticize the NYT for publishing this article as a newspaper story and not as a thick book.

by ardy42 6y ago

PoignardAzur 6y ago

> then contradicts itself by listing ten actual quotes from SSC that are in the article Hum, your definition of quote is very generous to the NYT, given than most of the 10 list items you mention are four words long or less.

ardy42 6y ago
> Hum, your definition of quote is very generous to the NYT, given than most of the 10 list items you mention are four words long or less. A quote that is not a blockquote is still a quote.
- da_big_ghey 6y ago
  Eight of those ten are not even complete sentences, let alone "not blockquotes". Every quote need not be a complete sentence or paragraph, but including almost none strikes me as poor journalism. A good writer would include a bit more information and give Alexander's statements a chance to speak for themselves.
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > Eight of those ten are not even complete sentences, let alone "not blockquotes". A quote that is not a complete sentence is still a quote. > Every quote need not be a complete sentence or paragraph, but including almost none strikes me as poor journalism. A good writer would include a bit more information and give Alexander's statements a chance to speak for themselves. The kind of journalism that has lots of long quotes like that is called an interview. This article was not an interview, nor could it have possibly been, because Scott Alexander refused to be interviewed. It's incredibly weak to criticize something for not happening to be the random thing you decided it should be instead. You might as well criticize the NYT for publishing this article as a newspaper story and not as a thick book.