> I’ve tried twice now, and for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what this post is trying to say. It's answering the question: "Each year, Nieman Lab

> I’ve tried twice now, and for the life of me, I have absolutely no idea what this post is trying to say. It's answering the question: "Each year, Nieman Lab asks some of the smartest people in journalism what they think is coming in the new year. Here are their predictions for 2023." > For an associate professor of communications, the writing is absolutely atrocious. I can’t make heads or tails of this rambling multitude of grammatical errors, passive aggressive insults, and buzz-word saturated soup. Is that true? Heads or tails? Seemed trivial to understand this for me. > I get that it one of a collection of predictions about how media in 2023 will look, Oh, and you still don't get that it's saying that 2023 will be the rise of the RSS reader? I thought that was pretty obvious. > I have no idea why it’s here Here on HN? Because someone shared it and people upvoted it. That's how HN works. Or do you mean on the site? I think we've discussed that already. > Especially if you don’t want to confuse your reader, and actually express a clear thesis. I don't think it was meant to convince you of anything. It was merely predictions. A simple question, and simple answers, shared online. It's not complicated. > I might bookmark this just as an example of how not to write a post. I'm doing the same for your comment, for similar reasons. Note: Don't like the tone of this comment? Just reflecting the energy you put out.