5 ms·

Personally I felt more engaged with the story due to its narrative style. A lot of the corporate responses wouldn't have as much impact if they were stated mor

Personally I felt more engaged with the story due to its narrative style. A lot of the corporate responses wouldn't have as much impact if they were stated more neutrally like "These 3 stock manufacturers declined to comment", or just providing their nonanswers sequentially. The author's bio also describes him as "chef, author and host of the YouTube cooking show Don’t Panic Pantry", so I think the style is more appropriate here than it would be written by a professional journalist on a more strictly "news" site.

dclowd9901 4y ago
I suppose it’s more “expected” given their background but I find it hard to give their research any credibility whatsoever. The informality of the writing style crosses well into the territory of “guys you’ll never guess what just happened to me.” Let me ask you this: how did this story actually benefit from being told from their perspective?
- wcedmisten 4y ago
  Here's another article summarizing the OC article [1]. It summarizes the details without any narrative, and concludes with: > While he was mostly stone-walled, Galuten was able to confirm this from at least one major producer. A General Mills representative told him that the Progresso Chicken Broth recipe starts with a broth concentrate. Then they add in water and additional ingredients to create what you buy in the store. Or, Galuten, says “just buy literally any box of chicken stock because they are probably all the same.” Frankly I don't find this as interesting as the original post. I guess it seems more down to earth and less sterile than presenting the facts in a traditional "journalist" third person way. Maybe I'm biased because I also write in this style for my own blog, but I frequently see this style used by hobbyists exploring technical topics on the front page of HN. E.g. a random post from the front page right now [2] [1]: https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/whats-in-store-bought-chicken-stock/ https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/whats-in-store-bought-ch... [2]: https://oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/my-class-required-ai-heres-what-ive https://oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/my-class-required-ai-h...

dclowd9901 4y ago

I suppose it’s more “expected” given their background but I find it hard to give their research any credibility whatsoever. The informality of the writing style crosses well into the territory of “guys you’ll never guess what just happened to me.” Let me ask you this: how did this story actually benefit from being told from their perspective?

wcedmisten 4y ago
Here's another article summarizing the OC article [1]. It summarizes the details without any narrative, and concludes with: > While he was mostly stone-walled, Galuten was able to confirm this from at least one major producer. A General Mills representative told him that the Progresso Chicken Broth recipe starts with a broth concentrate. Then they add in water and additional ingredients to create what you buy in the store. Or, Galuten, says “just buy literally any box of chicken stock because they are probably all the same.” Frankly I don't find this as interesting as the original post. I guess it seems more down to earth and less sterile than presenting the facts in a traditional "journalist" third person way. Maybe I'm biased because I also write in this style for my own blog, but I frequently see this style used by hobbyists exploring technical topics on the front page of HN. E.g. a random post from the front page right now [2] [1]: https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/whats-in-store-bought-chicken-stock/ https://www.tasteofhome.com/article/whats-in-store-bought-ch... [2]: https://oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/my-class-required-ai-heres-what-ive https://oneusefulthing.substack.com/p/my-class-required-ai-h...