4 ms·
> It is short and lacking detail This, if you're not familiar, is Axios's entire value prop: short and sweet. Not saying it's good or bad, just pointing out t
by schmichael 5y ago
> It is short and lacking detail
This, if you're not familiar, is Axios's entire value prop: short and sweet.
Not saying it's good or bad, just pointing out that I would consider this article standard if not verbose by Axios's own standards.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoI don't read it unless linked a story, but I do remember it popping into the scene with long form in depth journalism and interviews I hadn't seen elsewhere, with a style similar to The Intercept. I guess all good things come to an end.
- wolverine876 5y agoHmmm ... I'm pretty sure Axios's whole pitch from the beginning has been speed and succinctness.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoYou seem to be correct, at least according to Wikipedia. I may be confusing it with something else similarly named, or exaggerating how Axios on HBO got some exclusives? Not sure. As a side note, I wasn't aware of the following info (again from Wikipedia) but it kinda explains the OP article to me a little more: >In January 2017, Axios hired as an executive vice president Evan Ryan, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs and a former staffer for Vice President Joe Biden.
- wolverine876 5y agoWhat does it explain about the OP? Are you saying it's biased in favor of the Biden administration? What part is biased? The article doesn't even depict the situation as necessarily positive. Do you have evidence that Ryan participated? What about other people at Axios? Connecting otherwise unrelated dots is the foundation of conspiracy theories, not fact, and (if Wikipedia is accurate) that was five years ago.
- jimmygrapes 5y agoSure. Since my main takeaway from the article is that it's propaganda click bait where the title and topic is to imply that the U.S. is in a strong position, particularly given the timing and related news of the day, I attribute the underlying intent to "someone at axios wants to write a fluff piece about the Biden admin". Yes, that might be what you call a conspiracy theory, OK. I obviously can't prove it absent commentary from the author or other Axios representative in official capacity. But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox.
- wolverine876 5y ago> But come on, really. Pretend it was Trump and Fox Either there is a factual basis or there's not. And who are you talking about? Do you have any basis for me saying whatever you are implying? Are you saying everyone says it? Do you have any basis for comparing Axios to Fox? And if it's false for Trump and Fox, isn't it just as false here - you therefore know it's false? > I obviously can't prove it There's a lot of territory between proof to empty fabrications. You don't provide any evidence or more than two dots of data on a big graph - which you arbitrarily connect and claim the new line is a trend. Does that person even still work at Axios? In what role? Is there reason to believe they were involved in this article? What about others at Axios - including those directly involved in the article - do they have biases and why aren't they just as likely to affect this article? What about the author or their editor? If Axios had that bias, can you point to other similar articles? It's absurd to reason, 'this article might reflect well on the White House, therefore it's biased'. Isn't some positive news inevitable?
- throwfaraway9 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- wegljlkh 5y ago[flagged]
- mkhpalm 5y agoWhat does citing sources have to do with succinctness?