3 ms·

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 exag

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.

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.