5 ms·

I read the article having never heard of Watsi. To me it read as proactively addressing concerns I may encounter when considering participation. I came away w

I read the article having never heard of Watsi. To me it read as proactively addressing concerns I may encounter when considering participation. I came away with a very positive view of Watsi and have visited the website and started doing more research. Who knows, this is just one person's take, but I found the article beneficial.

loganfrederick 13y ago
I see both mcphilip and pg's sides. I did not think the article was written to make a negative point. Like PG said, the author seems to like Chase and Watsi, but had to present some counterarguments people could make against such a company. PG's comment is more applicable to journalism in general. What's lamentable is that it's the job of journalists to present sides which are wrong or uninformed.
- rsingel 13y ago
  Who says it the job of journalists to "present sides that are wrong or misinformed?" What you meant was that journalist shouldn't have a worldview different from mine. He didn't have to present those views -- those were his concerns or ones he considered valid.
pg 13y ago
Yeah, I agree that the end result is beneficial for Watsi, and I regret hijacking this thread with meta discussion about journalism when it could have been about Watsi instead.
- michaelwww 13y ago
  I agree, some of it was a little off-putting, but Andrew Leonard is one of the better writers at Salon and I thought he was just trying to address the stereotype about "Silly Con" valley and speak against it. He wrote: "Watsi must also bear the misfortune of coming of age during a simmering backlash against Silicon Valley" and then goes on to hold Watsi up as a counter example. I'm not aware of this simmering backlash against Silicon Valley, but it must exist somewhere for him to write about it this way.
Margaret12 13y ago
my buddy's mother-in-law makes $75 every hour on the internet. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her check was $17516 just working on the internet for a few hours. useful source... http://xurl.es/w2x2a http://xurl.es/w2x2a

loganfrederick 13y ago

I see both mcphilip and pg's sides. I did not think the article was written to make a negative point. Like PG said, the author seems to like Chase and Watsi, but had to present some counterarguments people could make against such a company. PG's comment is more applicable to journalism in general. What's lamentable is that it's the job of journalists to present sides which are wrong or uninformed.

rsingel 13y ago
Who says it the job of journalists to "present sides that are wrong or misinformed?" What you meant was that journalist shouldn't have a worldview different from mine. He didn't have to present those views -- those were his concerns or ones he considered valid.

pg 13y ago

Yeah, I agree that the end result is beneficial for Watsi, and I regret hijacking this thread with meta discussion about journalism when it could have been about Watsi instead.

michaelwww 13y ago
I agree, some of it was a little off-putting, but Andrew Leonard is one of the better writers at Salon and I thought he was just trying to address the stereotype about "Silly Con" valley and speak against it. He wrote: "Watsi must also bear the misfortune of coming of age during a simmering backlash against Silicon Valley" and then goes on to hold Watsi up as a counter example. I'm not aware of this simmering backlash against Silicon Valley, but it must exist somewhere for him to write about it this way.

Margaret12 13y ago

my buddy's mother-in-law makes $75 every hour on the internet. She has been without a job for seven months but last month her check was $17516 just working on the internet for a few hours. useful source... http://xurl.es/w2x2a http://xurl.es/w2x2a