keitai-l@appelsiini.net writes:
> Wow. The poor guy can't win for loosing. Some people slam him because
>the article was unfairly negative and unsubstantiated, and others slam him
>because it just said what everybody already knows.
I criticise him for all three. The article is unsubstantiated (to the
extent there are no figures to back it up - though to be fair he is up
front as to how little substantiation it has.), is unfairly negative, and
does say what almost everyone knows - lots of wild sites do not make money
- even those that try.
Let's Compare: ("Take a truth, any truth" as my old philosophy Prof used
to say): "Dirty Little Secret of England Football Team: Do not win all
games".
"Dirty little secret" serves to give a horridly negative slant to the
claim, while asserting a truth that everyone knows - who would claim the
contrary, after all? But no figures are given, which makes it
unsubstantiated.
One could even make the claim now after the 1:5 incident in Munich (ha!)
and the 2:0 score against Albania - and it would still be true. But it
would not be fair, or balanced, and for that reason it would not reflect
well on the person making the claim.
Some people on this list seem to assume that if it IS the case that lots
of wild sites do not make a profit (even those that do) that that somehow
makes the article immune from the criticisms that have been levelled at
it. It does not. Hyping something down is no better journalism than hyping
it up.
Nick
[ Need archives? How to unsubscribe? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Fri Sep 7 14:37:44 2001