3 ms·
The relevance is that there is a request for bloggers to reveal every little detail of the process of how they decided on what to write when, and I'm saying tha
by CurtMonash 13y ago
The relevance is that there is a request for bloggers to reveal every little detail of the process of how they decided on what to write when, and I'm saying that's a very unusual practice.
- SilasX 13y agoThe similarity isn't applicable. While I see now that my original comment was unclear and overbroad, let me emphasize that I'm not suggesting bloggers do a full "coredump" of their thought processes. I'm just saying that if a PR agent (or other heavily incentivized group) is directing your attention to a topic (and [in]forming your analysis), while the typical reader would not assume that's how you do it, then you should say so. Same as you would disclose any other conflict of interest. "I typical form my speech with this pronoun pattern" is not affected by that practice. (edit: and those who criticized you were pretty loopy in doing so, fwiw)
- CurtMonash 13y agoYour "if" is contrafactual -- more precisely the "while" clause is -- for the reasons I illustrated with the story of the pronoun pattern. At least it should be. Klein surely gets dozens of PR pitches per day, if not hundreds. Of course he's going to be influenced by a few of them. The people who assume otherwise ... well, they may well be too clueless to be his target audience. And, returning to my point, it's not common to outline the genesis of any particular opinion column or blog post. I don't really do it, yet I'm closer to doing it than most.
- SilasX 13y agoSeriously? You're claiming that most people are aware that writers are choosing their topics (and ideas) because they were fed them that by PR agents?
- CurtMonash 13y agoI'm claiming that most people are aware that PR agents work hard to try to influence us, and that their failure rate isn't 100.00%