3 ms·
I think the problem is with publications like Wired and Fast Company. They tend to gush and over exaggerate the achievements of their subjects while glossing ov
by andrewfelix 15y ago
I think the problem is with publications like Wired and Fast Company. They tend to gush and over exaggerate the achievements of their subjects while glossing over real problems. Everything is 'world changing', 'revolutionary' and 'disruptive'.
Fast Company is the worst offender. They rarely critically analyse anything.
- andrewljohnson 15y agoIt's interesting to me how tangential comments tend to rise to the top so much on HN. Your opinion is fair and all, and I'll believe you follow those publications and have a basis for making the claim. But you could have easily written this comment without having read a word of the article - is that really the best comment for the top of the page?
- andrewfelix 15y agoI'm not looking to get the top comment, it's just an observation. If you feel it doesn't belong here down-vote it. I don't think my comment is tangential. It helps explain why the original WIRED article didn't offer legitimate criticism of Marc Andreessen.
- rhizome 15y agoAnother way of looking at it, and probably what WIRED people would say, is that they don't run badmouth stories, ergo if the story was going to have a negative tone they simply might not run it at all.
- andrewfelix 15y agoCritical Analysis and badmouthing aren't the same thing. Plenty of publications get good interviews with polarising figures while critically analysing their achievements.
- rhizome 15y agoRight. I'm speaking of WIRED specifically.
- andrewfelix 15y agoMy point is WIRED can critically analyse without badmouthing.
- rhizome 14y agoThey could, but they don't.