What, you expected it as a sonnet, or something? I don't know if "prose" is the word you want here, so I am not sure what you're accusing her of.
'Everything Is a Story' Inside Wyrmwood Gaming's Narcissistic Funhouse
- Thread starter Teo Twawki
- Start date
What, you expected it as a sonnet, or something? I don't know if "prose" is the word you want here, so I am not sure what you're accusing her of.
Tun Kai Poh
Hero
I wish I had a writer like Linda when I was a magazine editor back in the 2000s!
Teo Twawki
Coffee ruminator
making discussion personal, then mockingly responding to moderator warning
This statement is self-reflective of its commenter.
Teo Twawki
Coffee ruminator
A majority of time as an editor, I merely hoped to encounter a writer who didn't make me dive into a pail of gin.
I used prose in the sense of it being more than just dry reporting of facts.
Put another way, I don't appreciate journalism that tries too hard and too obviously to convince me of something instead of trusting the facts to do the talking.
You and others might find how this was written to be innocuous; I don't, and as mentioned this isn't just some deflection on Wyrmwoods part, I don't really care about those people. This is a problem I have with journalism in general and this article triggered that issue pretty severely, prompting me to even comment on this.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Maybe your own statement is showing us why they write the way they do.
Dry reporting of facts. Dry. Try looking it up and you get this:
"(of information, writing, etc.) dealing primarily with facts and presented in a dull, uninteresting way"
You can write an article, cover the facts, keep them reasonably unbiased, and still have it be interesting rather than dry.
Last edited:
They write the way they do because they rely on clicks and engagement.
Emphasis mine, and frankly I think one can understand why I Id have such a huge problem with what you said, so I'll skip the rant for the moment.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Generally, it's better for readers to engage with the text rather than be bored by it and have their eyes glaze over and dry out.
Reasonably unbiased is literally the best a journalist, even a dry one, can get. The fact that they chose to consider something newsworthy (or not) already injects bias.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
Unless the only reporting you've ever read was in newspapers, you're astonishingly out of your depth there. Read any magazine feature written in the past 100 years.
In a time of misinformation, no, it isn't better, and I don't find laziness to be an excuse.
And there's a clear difference between bias that results from something being reported and bias from said report being written to convince rather than to just report.
I've said explicitly this is a criticism I levy at all journalism, so I don't know what you expect this statement to reveal.
Teo Twawki
Coffee ruminator
Some posters don't like legitimate criticism of their unfounded bashing.
Grendel_Khan
Hero
Oh cool, you're just anti all journalism? Based on some some ancient, but likely just fabricated-from-whole-cloth standard you have for what journalism should be?
If that's your position, what are you doing in this thread? Like jumping into a movie discussion thread yelling "Hey guys all movies are terrible now amirite?!?!"
Standards in journalism would certainly increase if all reports had to be exactly 14 lines, and rhyme.
Might make it a bit tricky to do an in-depth article in the space allowed, however.
I think the expression might be "purple prose", although I'm not sure how much it's used these days.
"Purple prose" is prose so flowery and needlessly ornate that it becomes difficult to take in, distracting from the narrative with its very form - if sentences are very long, using fifty-cent words and a lot of cliches, the prose may be purple. Romance novels, 19th century literature for which the author was paid by the word, and Michael Moorcock's works have a lot of purple prose.
Mod Note:
Do not make this personal. Casting aspersions on people is not okay. Keep it civil.
Are you really this upset?
While the phrase might not be accurate, the effects it has are in my opinion. As said, how this article was written triggered me enough to post and comment on it.
Frankly the subject matter itself doesn't even surprise me. Ive watched those vlogs they do on youtube and its immediately obvious what these people are as much as they try to hide it, and the revelations only confirm it.
Which is also why I take issue with how the article is written, because a lot of this (particularly the other incident thats only coming to light now) speaks for itself.
Im reminded of the first episode of Better Call Saul. Jimmy goes on in an elaborate speech trying to defend his clients, and the prosecution doesn't even say word, they just show what they did.
Thats the difference Im speaking to here.
Willie the Duck
Hero
Alright, I have read the article (twice).
It starts by setting a scene. The scene actually happened and is a part of the newsworthy elements of the story being covered. However, I can at least see how someone might interpret that as less traditional-standard-reporter-like than a story starting something like (to embellish from the subtitle) 'Allegations of disrespect for craftspeople, resistance to corporate and physical safety staff and processes, and a culture of unprofessionalism plague Wyrmwood Gaming; above and beyond allegations of sexual assault. [then proceeding with the scene in question].' If one is used to one, then the other seems jarring. I cannot see how it is somehow "embellishment or moisture," it is a framing device no different than my example is, neither specifically more or less accurate or prone to biased influencing of the reader. People are just very used to the Walter Cronkite version and can view it as somehow more pure.
Now, the article does contain a certain bias. The author clearly believes Wyrmwood's accusers more than the company official line -- and has a position on who is responsible (Doug Costello). I mean, statements like "there’s rot at the company" is passing judgement. That's perhaps a disservice to a reader looking for a (attempting at) neutral and factual rundown of what is known about the situation. However, it is not the form in which the article is written that caused this to be the case.
It starts by setting a scene. The scene actually happened and is a part of the newsworthy elements of the story being covered. However, I can at least see how someone might interpret that as less traditional-standard-reporter-like than a story starting something like (to embellish from the subtitle) 'Allegations of disrespect for craftspeople, resistance to corporate and physical safety staff and processes, and a culture of unprofessionalism plague Wyrmwood Gaming; above and beyond allegations of sexual assault. [then proceeding with the scene in question].' If one is used to one, then the other seems jarring. I cannot see how it is somehow "embellishment or moisture," it is a framing device no different than my example is, neither specifically more or less accurate or prone to biased influencing of the reader. People are just very used to the Walter Cronkite version and can view it as somehow more pure.
Now, the article does contain a certain bias. The author clearly believes Wyrmwood's accusers more than the company official line -- and has a position on who is responsible (Doug Costello). I mean, statements like "there’s rot at the company" is passing judgement. That's perhaps a disservice to a reader looking for a (attempting at) neutral and factual rundown of what is known about the situation. However, it is not the form in which the article is written that caused this to be the case.
Teo Twawki
Coffee ruminator
I attempted a similar line of philosophy with my Ph.D panel.
Its that and the style/presentation in tandem that cause that suspicion.
Its just unnecessary. When you're dropping the proverbial bomb that the dude at the center of their vlogs did what he did (im not going to repeat it), you don't need to try this hard.
It really shouldn't be controversial to want better from a journalist than that, especially in a time when journalism as a whole is being devalued and co-opted to go against its original purpose.
I don't need to disagree with what shes reporting on (or for that matter, her opinion on what she reported, which is actually milder than my own given how the other incident is so seemingly glossed over) to still take issue with how she reported it.
Maybe you feel she was editorializing? That might be a legitimate criticism.
So, the problem with that is that "dry facts" don't generally exist outside of mathematics and some well-established physical sciences. Authors who present "dry facts" on human events are still presenting the findings through their lens, with biases that come along with them. But, since they are being "dry", the reader gets little to no information on the lens, the biases are hidden.
This piece makes the author's take on the matter bleedingly obvious. I know what she thinks these things mean. That's good for a critical reader.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
