4 ms·
I don't know, what you call "really obnoxious" is, I would say, par for the course in journalism - but not because that's a low standard! The facts are there,
by its_so_on 14y ago
I don't know, what you call "really obnoxious" is, I would say, par for the course in journalism - but not because that's a low standard! The facts are there, and what is missing that you provide is, well, not a low standard.
You're just a stranger to me so this is nothing personal, but I would say your analysis is 'particularly deep' and insightful. In other words, it's not that journalistic standards are low: it's that I think you (jacobolus) are inordinately insightful on this front and probably worth millions (over a few years) if you leverage this in the right international context.
- its_so_on 14y agoI don't remember if I was being hasty and didn't read your whole comment, or if you added to it, but I only thought your first paragraph was insightful. ("It’s really obnoxious that the author allows this facile analysis to pass without any attempt to provide context. Hong Kong and Singapore were Western colonial corporate/financial/trade centers for a giant continent which was otherwise mostly blocked off, and so were bottlenecks through which massive amounts of capital flowed (and goods: HK, Singapore, and Shanghai are the busiest ports in Asia). The UAE is a tiny country with one of the largest oil reserves in the world.")