Quote:
Originally Posted by Viffermike
You did what C&D didn't waste white space explaining since the car didn't make 10Best: explain ad minutiae what the vast majority of readers don't give a whit about. The context is inappropriate. That's why 'at first sight' is used in the piece. It's called a qualification. Great! You know better. Perhaps in its review of the M2, C&D mentions this, eh?
Rule No. 1 in critical journalism: Understand your readership's expectations, and don't muddy up copy with information that readership doesn't expect or need. C&D does this well, and does that above.
I'm tellin' y'all: quit being skeptics about criticism. It's people like you that are killing criticism of all varieties in Western media -- and trust me: the 'other side' is far darker.
|
Huh? They put it out there as a fact, sans any qualifiers, leaving an indellible mark in the uninitiated reader's mind, something that is fake news. If the conclusion they came to was indeed 'at first sight', why not correct it? Irresponsible journalism? I think so. And if the item they put out there is 'minutiae', why mention it at all if not to make one of the two cars appear undesirable?