3 ms·

Folks. Please. I have a request. Read the article first. Someone took the time to write it. Don't dash off a quick gut reaction to the title and then go back an

by nyeah 2y ago

Folks. Please. I have a request. Read the article first. Someone took the time to write it. Don't dash off a quick gut reaction to the title and then go back and read the text later.

csours 2y ago
I read the first 3 paragraphs, skimmed, and the last paragraph, and did a keyword search (I should have search for perspective, but that wasn't on my mind). Title is bad no matter what. Edit: Here's another Narrative: The author is a university professor and most often writes for students. As such, they expect the reader to fully and completely read the whole selection, as they will be tested on it. I, however am not a student, and so the first thing I do is evaluate whether an article is worth my time. I do this by reading 3 or so paragraphs, skim for keywords, and the last paragraph. This is so common there must be a name for it [0] that I don't know because I am also not a media studies graduate. As this is so common, it must be written for; the author is expected to introduce any keywords in the first 3 or last paragraph. If they do not, the editor should return it. The title is generally not written by the author, but may be selected from a list that are provided by an editor. The author should update their writing so that the title makes sense in context. --- 0. grug brain media literacy? --- Edit 2: I have no idea if the narrative above is true
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
aaron695 2y ago
[dead]
Der_Einzige 2y ago
Why should I? It’s full of critical theorists, whose whole careers were based on nothing but critiquing things they either didn’t read at all (see Zizek admitting to this repeatedly), or poorly/narrowly read. It’s absolutely in line with critical theorist nonsense to just critique it without reading it! Very rhizomatic thinking! No biopolitical thinking here at all!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- nyeah 2y ago
  I don't know who Zizek is. I don't think Sartre and Wallace Stevens are pomo nonsense-mongers. (In case that's what you mean by 'Zizek'.) Criticizing the article without reading it is misleading and a waste of time. I think we ... agree on that? Not 100% sure.

by nyeah 2y ago

Folks. Please. I have a request. Read the article first. Someone took the time to write it. Don't dash off a quick gut reaction to the title and then go back and read the text later.

csours 2y ago

I read the first 3 paragraphs, skimmed, and the last paragraph, and did a keyword search (I should have search for perspective, but that wasn't on my mind). Title is bad no matter what. Edit: Here's another Narrative: The author is a university professor and most often writes for students. As such, they expect the reader to fully and completely read the whole selection, as they will be tested on it. I, however am not a student, and so the first thing I do is evaluate whether an article is worth my time. I do this by reading 3 or so paragraphs, skim for keywords, and the last paragraph. This is so common there must be a name for it [0] that I don't know because I am also not a media studies graduate. As this is so common, it must be written for; the author is expected to introduce any keywords in the first 3 or last paragraph. If they do not, the editor should return it. The title is generally not written by the author, but may be selected from a list that are provided by an editor. The author should update their writing so that the title makes sense in context. --- 0. grug brain media literacy? --- Edit 2: I have no idea if the narrative above is true

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

aaron695 2y ago

[dead]

Der_Einzige 2y ago

Why should I? It’s full of critical theorists, whose whole careers were based on nothing but critiquing things they either didn’t read at all (see Zizek admitting to this repeatedly), or poorly/narrowly read. It’s absolutely in line with critical theorist nonsense to just critique it without reading it! Very rhizomatic thinking! No biopolitical thinking here at all!

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
nyeah 2y ago
I don't know who Zizek is. I don't think Sartre and Wallace Stevens are pomo nonsense-mongers. (In case that's what you mean by 'Zizek'.) Criticizing the article without reading it is misleading and a waste of time. I think we ... agree on that? Not 100% sure.