The old media has their business model. It's old and self-perpetuating. They just keep following their old model. Yes, in places the Internet is bringing som

The old media has their business model. It's old and self-perpetuating. They just keep following their old model. Yes, in places the Internet is bringing some changes. The model is based on that sure-fire method of getting and holding the attention of an audience discovered by the ancient Greeks and used so heavily in all of English literature -- formula fiction. One special case, from early English literature, is a morality play where there is the trilogy, transgression, retribution, and redemption. The transgression is from human sin and, thus, immoral. The retribution is from an angry god. The morality plays were big in early English literture -- scare the heck out of the yahoos and get donations to the church. The two 'Rings', Wagner's and Tolkien's, along with that take-off on Wagner's 'Ring' 'Star Wars' were morality plays with the trilogy. A big part of formula fiction is a protagonist the audience identifies with, has a problem, struggles with the problem, solves the problem, and gets the girl. A large fraction of movies, especially US westerns, are like this. Altogether it's about 'drama', that is, 'art' as in 'communication, intrepretation of human experience, emotion'. There the goal is to create a case of vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment. So, it's all about emotion and entertainment. 'Writers' are trained in and basically use the tools of such 'drama'. Even people who try to 'write' about science. The article of this thread is an example -- its intention and techniques are just drama. But according to the standards of information safety and efficacy of the 20th century from applied math, physical science, engineering, and medical science, drama does not qualify as solid information. The freedom in technical writing you outlined is fine but is light years away from the drama of the article. The article was just not about the science; instead the article was just drama. For the science it made a mess, a total mess. Someone who wants to have an emotional experience about warming, ice melting, the land rising, likely the sea levels rising, etc. might enjoy the article. If the drama stays as just light entertainment, fine. If sometimes drama is used to underline the intense emotions of human suffering, fine. But passing out drama instead of solid information about science is just sick-o; doing this for important subjects is self-destructive sick-o. In the case of GW, CC, AGW, CO2, ..., the drama stands to be so irrational the results will be massive human suffering with 'drama' all its own. So this drama stuff for serious scientific subjects is a serious threat. So I called BS. But some mods HATE what I wrote. What I wrote is fine, every word of it, just fine, fully justified, very thoroughly explained, and right on target, with nothing wrong at all. Sill some mods just HATE it. They won't respond and, instead, just downvote. If PG isn't doing this, then he needs to correct those who do. These mods are making HN be brain-dead. This isn't the first time: HN has a secret list of wacko PC criteria.