|
|
|
|
|
|
by nailer
3177 days ago
|
|
|
> Why would Wired do that work when they can just recommend that you read the book? Why do you think it's a significant amount of work to simply quote an author, rather than adopt their viewpoint? > Why would you ask Wired to do that when you can just read the book? Justification is provided in the comment you're responding to. > And why do you believe that you'd find that article any more satisfying I'd find an article that quotes OReilly rather than adopting his viewpoint more satisfying because it distinguishes OReilly's viewpoint from Wired's. This is the difference between journalism and marketing. |
|
|
Because simply quoting the author won't suffice. The topic is sufficiently complex that a proper treatment requires an entire book chapter plus several preceding chapters of explanation. Paraphrasing or skimming won't work because then you'd accuse them of being even more biased.
This article gives a factual list of the topics the book covers, asks the book's author several questions about those topics, and directly quotes the book's author's responses. Yeah, that's marketing. Anything they could have written in that format would have necessarily been marketing. The only way not to support the book in that format would have been to not publish the article at all. Where do you see Wired "adopting O'Reilly's viewpoint"?
If you just want to never see anyone advertise anything, uh, okay? Every bit ever communicated is an opinion designed to accomplish some goal in the mind of another person. To escape this I suggest renouncing all interaction with other humans and moving to an uncontacted area in the depths of some rainforest.