3 ms·

“I got about half way through the first one and was just wondering "I still have no idea what this is all about."” He says what it’s all about in the first par

“I got about half way through the first one and was just wondering "I still have no idea what this is all about."” He says what it’s all about in the first paragraph, and by 100 words in we have an outline of the whole write-up.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
Huh? He mentions nowhere in his first paragraph, or first couple paragraphs for that matter, the reason for why he was fired, which seems like a rather important detail.
bryanrasmussen 6y ago
>He says what it’s all about in the first paragraph I for one would not consider the paragraph: "On February 5 this year, one week after an article about me appeared in the Daily Beast, The New York Times announced that I would be leaving." a description of what it's all about. For what it's worth I already know the story, but if I didn't I certainly wouldn't have a clue from that paragraph. >and by 100 words in we have an outline of the whole write-up. The article is incredibly long-winded and has a difficulty getting to the point, in honor of which I should continue my comment, of which we are currently in the preambulatory phase, so yeah anyway, by 128 words we know: that the document will be in 4 parts, the first part is the introduction and we're in it! Something happened on January 28th! What Happened During the Investigation? (there was an investigation of something!!, what was it, someone got murdered, we don't know yet, we're in the introduction, but hey this guy was the lead guy on reporting covid 19 pandemic and he started as a copyboy in 1976, imagine!) What Happened in Peru? (something happened in Peru - was this after the murder investigation, don't know yet.) but hey I guess we're done with the introduction so now we can find out what it's about! Nope, we're still in the introduction. There are 963 more words were he tells you his reasons for writing on medium, gets flamboyant with the language about government corruption and gives examples of how words matter and he hates being misquoted etc. etc. I admit I didn't read very closely because it was uninteresting and as a consequence I find myself incapable of quoting him accurately. so now - a thousand words in he ends the introduction with: "I’ll tell my story in three further parts:" This guy is not Dickens or Twain, and his rambling narrative is as interesting as someone whining about how their wife doesn't understand their drinking embedded in the middle of a TPS report. But hey 1000 words in and I have a good feeling we're gonna find out what happened with what I have to assume was a murder and some sort of freakout in Peru!! this is going to be epic!!! He now lists the three further parts: What Happened on Jan. 28 and Thereafter? What Happened during the August 2019 Times Investigation? What Happened in Peru? Now this is truly WTF territory for me - is he going to list what he is going to write about at the end of each section? So then he writes a couple hundred more words - he says he remembers what happened in Peru because of emails, but wait, before we find out about what happened in Peru time for a look backwards about being interviewed on a TV program where he said some stuff he thought might get him in trouble, but it didn't I guess because it seems like something else that happened in Peru got him in trouble. Oh man, I am starting to worry this is going to turn out not to be a murder story after all.. actually I don't think the margins of this comment box are vast enough for me to recount all the details of how he comes to actually reveal whatever happened in Peru! and the investigation, which here we are nearly 1500 words and he hasn't actually said what that was about either. This guy tiptoeing around the subject is weird, is he trying to build suspense. You'd think he was trying to build suspense, and it was going to be the story about a voodoo cult, sex hippies, and a gun running cult! But it's so boring, it can't be that. As one keeps reading and nothing happens there starts to form the suspicion that in the end Peru will be some boring snooze-fest, like maybe he used the n-word or something and got fired.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  I write here instead of edit - when I say he's not Twain or Dickens I used them as my examples because they are two of my favorite authors and I've been rereading them quite a bit, also they are verbose and perhaps given to rambling. This guy, a journalist, isn't Hemingway either. Which is a pity. on edit: I also notice I expected him to have a couple cults in his story. Can't have too many cults, nor too many words in your comments describing how someone has to many words in their version of events attempting to win the public to their side.
  - leephillips 6y ago
    You should have had at least one more cult in there.
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      The Thrill Kill Kult aren't returning my calls anymore.
- leephillips 6y ago
  That was entertaining. I’m not defending the organization of the piece, which I agree is less than optimal, as well as super redundant. But’s it’s also an exaggeration to suggest that he doesn’t tell us what it’s about at the start: it’s about how he got canned because of an article in the Beast.
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    No - he refers to what it's about, and if you already know the story you are able to understand immediately. But it doesn't say he got fired. It doesn't even say his departure from the NYT was because of the article in the Beast. On a blank slate, it's possible the article in the Beast leaked his recent terminal diagnosis.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    "On February 5 this year, one week after an article about me appeared in the Daily Beast, The New York Times announced that I would be leaving." I wonder where he's leaving, is it Peru? facetiousness aside, yes it seems likely the article is about him getting fired because of something negative in the media. 1500 words later you still don't know what this negative thing is! I think it's reasonable that someone reading it says at that point: "1500 words in I still don't know what it's about!" which is basically what your initial objection was to. In fact if you've gone through all that and still don't know what he got fired for or even (I would have to read the first half again to make sure of this next part) if he got fired I think it might be reasonable to start to doubt if your first assumption that he got fired due to a negative article in the media was in fact correct! He's beaten around the bush so much that he's managed to wear a deep groove about it, and still managed to not touch the bush at all! It's so bad it's comical, I'm tempted to rewrite famous speeches and articles from the past in this new style. on edit: removed an extra word - hundred.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

Huh? He mentions nowhere in his first paragraph, or first couple paragraphs for that matter, the reason for why he was fired, which seems like a rather important detail.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago

>He says what it’s all about in the first paragraph I for one would not consider the paragraph: "On February 5 this year, one week after an article about me appeared in the Daily Beast, The New York Times announced that I would be leaving." a description of what it's all about. For what it's worth I already know the story, but if I didn't I certainly wouldn't have a clue from that paragraph. >and by 100 words in we have an outline of the whole write-up. The article is incredibly long-winded and has a difficulty getting to the point, in honor of which I should continue my comment, of which we are currently in the preambulatory phase, so yeah anyway, by 128 words we know: that the document will be in 4 parts, the first part is the introduction and we're in it! Something happened on January 28th! What Happened During the Investigation? (there was an investigation of something!!, what was it, someone got murdered, we don't know yet, we're in the introduction, but hey this guy was the lead guy on reporting covid 19 pandemic and he started as a copyboy in 1976, imagine!) What Happened in Peru? (something happened in Peru - was this after the murder investigation, don't know yet.) but hey I guess we're done with the introduction so now we can find out what it's about! Nope, we're still in the introduction. There are 963 more words were he tells you his reasons for writing on medium, gets flamboyant with the language about government corruption and gives examples of how words matter and he hates being misquoted etc. etc. I admit I didn't read very closely because it was uninteresting and as a consequence I find myself incapable of quoting him accurately. so now - a thousand words in he ends the introduction with: "I’ll tell my story in three further parts:" This guy is not Dickens or Twain, and his rambling narrative is as interesting as someone whining about how their wife doesn't understand their drinking embedded in the middle of a TPS report. But hey 1000 words in and I have a good feeling we're gonna find out what happened with what I have to assume was a murder and some sort of freakout in Peru!! this is going to be epic!!! He now lists the three further parts: What Happened on Jan. 28 and Thereafter? What Happened during the August 2019 Times Investigation? What Happened in Peru? Now this is truly WTF territory for me - is he going to list what he is going to write about at the end of each section? So then he writes a couple hundred more words - he says he remembers what happened in Peru because of emails, but wait, before we find out about what happened in Peru time for a look backwards about being interviewed on a TV program where he said some stuff he thought might get him in trouble, but it didn't I guess because it seems like something else that happened in Peru got him in trouble. Oh man, I am starting to worry this is going to turn out not to be a murder story after all.. actually I don't think the margins of this comment box are vast enough for me to recount all the details of how he comes to actually reveal whatever happened in Peru! and the investigation, which here we are nearly 1500 words and he hasn't actually said what that was about either. This guy tiptoeing around the subject is weird, is he trying to build suspense. You'd think he was trying to build suspense, and it was going to be the story about a voodoo cult, sex hippies, and a gun running cult! But it's so boring, it can't be that. As one keeps reading and nothing happens there starts to form the suspicion that in the end Peru will be some boring snooze-fest, like maybe he used the n-word or something and got fired.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I write here instead of edit - when I say he's not Twain or Dickens I used them as my examples because they are two of my favorite authors and I've been rereading them quite a bit, also they are verbose and perhaps given to rambling. This guy, a journalist, isn't Hemingway either. Which is a pity. on edit: I also notice I expected him to have a couple cults in his story. Can't have too many cults, nor too many words in your comments describing how someone has to many words in their version of events attempting to win the public to their side.
- leephillips 6y ago
  You should have had at least one more cult in there.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    The Thrill Kill Kult aren't returning my calls anymore.
leephillips 6y ago
That was entertaining. I’m not defending the organization of the piece, which I agree is less than optimal, as well as super redundant. But’s it’s also an exaggeration to suggest that he doesn’t tell us what it’s about at the start: it’s about how he got canned because of an article in the Beast.
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  No - he refers to what it's about, and if you already know the story you are able to understand immediately. But it doesn't say he got fired. It doesn't even say his departure from the NYT was because of the article in the Beast. On a blank slate, it's possible the article in the Beast leaked his recent terminal diagnosis.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  "On February 5 this year, one week after an article about me appeared in the Daily Beast, The New York Times announced that I would be leaving." I wonder where he's leaving, is it Peru? facetiousness aside, yes it seems likely the article is about him getting fired because of something negative in the media. 1500 words later you still don't know what this negative thing is! I think it's reasonable that someone reading it says at that point: "1500 words in I still don't know what it's about!" which is basically what your initial objection was to. In fact if you've gone through all that and still don't know what he got fired for or even (I would have to read the first half again to make sure of this next part) if he got fired I think it might be reasonable to start to doubt if your first assumption that he got fired due to a negative article in the media was in fact correct! He's beaten around the bush so much that he's managed to wear a deep groove about it, and still managed to not touch the bush at all! It's so bad it's comical, I'm tempted to rewrite famous speeches and articles from the past in this new style. on edit: removed an extra word - hundred.