This writing is so clear and good. I can't tell you how many NYT articles I read where the paragraphs feel out of order, chopped up and there is no consistent flow. This reads very enjoyably.
That kind of modern journalism is absurd. Originally the rule in journalism was, the first paragraph must contain who, when, what, where, then subsequent paragraphs fill in the details in either chronological or logical order.
Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep the reader searching for it, like a slot machine.
As soon as I realize that’s how something is written, I take that as signal it lacks the quality to stand alone and I discard it and move on.
Yeah. I can usually tell within the first couple of words if the article is worth reading or not. Anything that seems to start with a complete non-sequitur or some variant of “once upon a time” is an immediate back-button bounce for me!
It's more that they're using Skinner Box variable rate reinforcement bs to rope readers in and keep them reading, which explains why the text feels so randomized and out-of-any-logical-order.
"John Smith is buttering his toast with a spoon, much to the bemusement of our waitress Jane at the All Day Diner on the outskirts of Duluth Minnesota..."
So you dont pay for any of it and then complain this is what they have to do to get views and clicks. Chicken meet egg, egg meet chicken, pot meet kettle.
"We need to keep the revenue coming in these changing times" is not a justification for descending deeper and deeper into immoral and anti-social behavior.
Not to mention, the way market economy works means that even if we'd all start paying for shitty pseudo-journalism today, the influx of money will not make them climb back out of the ethical/quality hole - it'll only validate getting worse as a growth model.
I pay about $2k/yr for news sites and the variability is high even for paid sites. Check out the WSJ Editorial pages if you want to observe diminished writing ability.
This whole thread we’re in was started by someone observing how well-written and clear the original article is, so I don’t think the only way to get clicks is to write in the way I’m complaining about.
The fact that he publishes informative pieces at such a steady rate is remarkable as well. And the fact that he resisted to use the phrase "deep dive" in this particular one is indicative of a high level of discipline with his prose.
writers rarely have complete control over what editors do to their pieces before the nyt publishes them, and in this case there are no middlemen muddling things up
Now the first paragraph must contain an emotional human-interest style “hook” to rope in the reader, then bury the lede in some random spot in the remainder of the text, in an attempt to keep the reader searching for it, like a slot machine.
As soon as I realize that’s how something is written, I take that as signal it lacks the quality to stand alone and I discard it and move on.