5 ms·

The piece was bad. After all the time they had to work on it, it was a lazy hack job that normally wouldn't make the cut at the NYT. It is a sign of the days we

The piece was bad. After all the time they had to work on it, it was a lazy hack job that normally wouldn't make the cut at the NYT. It is a sign of the days we live in when a Mean Girls style burn book page makes it into what used to be the paper of record.

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago
You’re not kidding. It’s surprising how bad it is, and that’s after reading all these comments saying how bad it is. It is plainly a hit piece devoid of any substantive reporting or analysis.
- julianmarq 6y ago
  > It is plainly a hit piece devoid of any substantive reporting or analysis. This is a great summation. To me it reads like the best attempt the journalist could pull off at writing a hit piece against some guy who just started a low cost medical practice, and has never actually done anything bad in his life. A whole lot of vague insinuations and guilt by association. If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if this was Metz's way to tell himself that he is a better person than this guy trying to make psychiatric care more accessible, just because he might disagree on some political issues.
listless 6y ago
This is well said. The article is so weak and poorly laid out its like listening to a bad pop song through cheap speakers. It doesn’t even have a proper closing. Just ends abruptly.
- notmarkus 6y ago
  I think the closing was effective in what it was going for: implying that this has all been a "grift." The abruptness is intended to leave the reader with a reverberating final note in their mind. "$250,000... $250,000..."
unityByFreedom 6y ago
Seemed fine to me, not negative in the slightest. Today's internet is not the same as Ender's Game. You don't get to become popular while remaining anonymous. Only the politburo can do that.
busterarm 6y ago
I would rather read /pol/ than the NYT with articles like this. Edit: to my commentor, I'm not an SSC reader.
- unityByFreedom 6y ago
  The idea that /pol appeals to SSC readers isn't surprising.

SheinhardtWigCo 6y ago

You’re not kidding. It’s surprising how bad it is, and that’s after reading all these comments saying how bad it is. It is plainly a hit piece devoid of any substantive reporting or analysis.

julianmarq 6y ago
> It is plainly a hit piece devoid of any substantive reporting or analysis. This is a great summation. To me it reads like the best attempt the journalist could pull off at writing a hit piece against some guy who just started a low cost medical practice, and has never actually done anything bad in his life. A whole lot of vague insinuations and guilt by association. If I didn't know better, I'd wonder if this was Metz's way to tell himself that he is a better person than this guy trying to make psychiatric care more accessible, just because he might disagree on some political issues.

listless 6y ago

This is well said. The article is so weak and poorly laid out its like listening to a bad pop song through cheap speakers. It doesn’t even have a proper closing. Just ends abruptly.

notmarkus 6y ago
I think the closing was effective in what it was going for: implying that this has all been a "grift." The abruptness is intended to leave the reader with a reverberating final note in their mind. "$250,000... $250,000..."

unityByFreedom 6y ago

Seemed fine to me, not negative in the slightest. Today's internet is not the same as Ender's Game. You don't get to become popular while remaining anonymous. Only the politburo can do that.

busterarm 6y ago

I would rather read /pol/ than the NYT with articles like this. Edit: to my commentor, I'm not an SSC reader.

unityByFreedom 6y ago
The idea that /pol appeals to SSC readers isn't surprising.