Maybe I'm just naive or dense, but I'm not seeing language I'd be concerned about in the article? Help me get calibrated, is there something in particular that bothers you? or just a general vibe?
Literally zero need for that; none. And it's that kind of language that calls into question the authors motives. I went from "Excellent reporting here" to "This guy is emotional and not a reliable source of information" in 6 words.
Unfortunately I had the same impression. Or the comment on Anna Du's looks. Otherwise great reporting that, even in an informal substack piece, lose the shine with these types of aggressive comments. The content speaks for itself and is already quite damning to the corrupt editors. No need for ad hominem attacks.
Literally zero need for that; none. And it's that kind of language that calls into question the authors motives. I went from "Excellent reporting here" to "This guy is emotional and not a reliable source of information" in 6 words.