Towards the End of the Morning

[darkwolf]

Don't let the haters get you down, Liander. You and I might not get along, but even I can tell when your doing great work...

[Zach]

This is an amazing piece, Liander, and I hope you continue to report. You obviously have a talent, added with the fact you're humble, you can only go up from here.

Don't worry about those Oscars; all they know is trash and all they'll spew is trash.

[Alex Ayres]

Let me see if I can frame this for you Alex; I wasn't trying to insult your thought process. Craven, fearful is rhetoric I wouldn't attribute to Liander. I will agree to disagree with your thoughts, I assumed I didn't have to voice that sentiment. You did make a good point with the comment you made that I quoted. Simple, to the point.

I wasn't aware that publicly complimenting a person for stepping up their game is ass kissing, c'est la vie.

When you add a negative connotation to something, such as "diatribe", that comes across as insulting. But maybe your command of the English language isn't as strong as you thought, and you thought diatribe had a positive spin to it. If that's the case, I apologize for my sarcastic rhetoric.


And to everyone else, please, continue to kiss Liander's ass. As far as I can tell, you're all just proving his point about editorials. Seems like he wrote it so you all could fluff his ego. What do I see when I read this? I see the last few lines where Liander says if I have failed you in any way, let me know. And he has. And I let him know.


Tell him to ignore my words, but at his own peril. As from what I've read, darkwolf and I are the only ones that have offered any thing constructive, though darkwolf's words were certainly much nicer than mine.


But in the end, I wonder why I even try. This city has never run on logic.


You all read a piece by someone you like, about someone you don't, so it's masterful writing.


I read someone guising a piece blaming his short comings on other people as self reflection.

A reporter goes after the unattainable: absolute truth. To strive for absolute truth, you chase down every source, no matter how reluctant that source may be.

"I tried a few times, they were mean to me, boo boo, so I'm not trying anymore" is not something a reporter would say.


If that's your excuse, don't call yourself a reporter. Stick to editorials where your fans can unabashedly kiss your ass.


If you're going to be a reporter, report, and don't be a fucking cry baby who runs to the editorials when he's had a rough go at it so his cubs can lick his wounds.

[Vex]

Alex, people will give an iota of a fuck about your opinion when you learn the basic tenets of our culture and apply that knowledge in a constructive manner.

Until then, you’re about as effective in getting your message across as a wet fart is pleasant. You’re welcome to not care. We’re all welcome to not care. Everyone moves on.

I do wish people would just stop talking to him like he’s capable of intelligent thought, though.

[Alex Ayres]

Alex, people will give an iota of a fuck about your opinion when you learn the basic tenets of our culture and apply that knowledge in a constructive manner.

Praise senseless babble as long as it's babble about someone you detest, and babble by someone you like. Condemn anything anyone you don't like says and/or anything someone says that doesn't align with your particular point of view, rather than have a constructive conversation about it.

You're particularly skilled at the second half, dearest Vex.

What am I missing?


Either way, I've said what I need to say about the topic. I mean, not all of it, but I imagine if I start pointing out the obvious fact that Liander's reports are the furthest thing from objective and suggest that if Ab actually wants to be an objective paper (as Liander says in his editorial), then it should hire more reporters(maybe from non sounds made when clearing your throat/of milk lineages) so as to actually offer more than one perspective, and certainly not just the perspective of one, extremely biased lineage, it would just rouse another bout of senseless name calling and off topic conversation.


I'll leave the thread to its intended purpose: offering Liander criticism, as he asks for in the closing lines of his piece fluffing Liander's ego.


So long!


ETA:

I am in no way calling Liander's piece senseless babble. He very clearly had an objective, hide his criticism of Seyda and Pea, and his blame on them for his shortcomings as a reporter, behind a piece where he humbles himself and seeks no praise for his actions, and based on the comments, he achieved this.

I mean, I think I would have been a bit more subtle than making the first 50% about how I never do this kind of thing, and the next 50% a flaying of two individuals which amounted to "they said mean things, therefore I won't do my job, and my boss said that's fine! Hmph!" But he knew his audience, and that much effort was not necessary.

But again, not senseless babble. It was indeed an articulate and well written piece that shifted any blame of bad reporting from himself to someone else. And I do look forward to seeing Liander improve as a reporter, especially when it comes to being objective and telling a story from all perspectives, not just from the perspective of people who are nice and compliant when he approaches them.

[Sartori]

Being objective is overrated.
Polarisation creates arguments and drama, which fuels engagement and activity.

[Vetras]

I'd like to point out that there's a difference in ass kissing and encouraging a person who has improved in his continual efforts to have some journalistic integrity. Again, this is a case of 'just because you weren't there to see it, didn't mean it hadn't happened,' which is probably somewhere around the ballpark of eighty percent of what is utterly fucked about this city in general.

In the case of your need to reply to nearly everything that is said here, Alex, remember this:

Just because pea says you can essentially choose when you want to represent her political business, doesn't mean you do have that choice. There have been countless times - not only in political lights but in a general light - where an employee, as I look at you, shared, did or expressed something in a public venue that they were sacked for. In any business, you represent that company or the people you work for ALL OF THE TIME, regardless of the safety net they might set down for you. So when you look at instances where you yourself have taken the assumed journalistic approach, do you really feel as though your representation of your employer was the best? Even in this thread, are you representing her in the most positive light as possible?

I'd also like to say that if you really wanted to see true improvements of the journalist that you're blatantly attacking for his own journalistic venture, then you would be waiting for another installment to see whether he's truly learned and took away the major key points that you've brought up. Not coming back to this thread to continue your tedious rebuttals towards the citizens of the city while sprinkling in more 'Fuck your pieces, Liander,' as nicely as you are able to.

[Dahlia]

And to add to that...

If people want variety and diversity when it comes to writers, perhaps those people need to put in some effort to bridge those gaps themselves. You have zero room to cry that the Ab Antiquo is a biased source when folks from other (even opposing) factions have made zero efforts to contribute.

[KainsSon]

Being objective is overrated.
Polarisation creates arguments and drama, which fuels engagement and activity.

You're a cheeky Bastard, sir. We see you there.