It’s not the article’s job to give the reader that context. It’s a reader responsibility to be informed so that reader can engage in the meta discussion. What your argument is proposing is actual laziness. All your argument’s criticism amounts to is an attempt to shut down discussion. Your argument depends on ignorance to make effective journalism seem morally wrong, in this case lazy. When in fact the lack of context provided by the mainstream media on this topic is what the article is actually about.
That’s the reader’s job. There are other articles that cover Concord and Concord’s flop in detail. Those topics have their place and it’s not in the meta discussion about the meta topic, by definition. Having to do the reader’s job of staying informed on a topic in articles about the meta discussion would prevent the discussion of the meta topic. Which is the goal of your argument.
In other words, your argument is intended to silence criticism of the mainstream media under the guise of imposing a moral value, incorrectly as it stands. If we followed your argument we would be unable to discuss anything because every discussion would have to have the context of what came before. What your argument calls for is lazy. If a reader wants to participate in discussions they have to take the time to get informed.
It didn’t know. You were wrong from the start, and the longer you stuck by it, the more wrong you became.
And since you seem to have trouble with your memory, I’m going to repeat: there’s nothing you can do or say to change my mind, this is lazy journalism. At this point, you’re entertaining me by wasting your time.
It’s not the article’s job to give the reader that context. It’s a reader responsibility to be informed so that reader can engage in the meta discussion. What your argument is proposing is actual laziness. All your argument’s criticism amounts to is an attempt to shut down discussion. Your argument depends on ignorance to make effective journalism seem morally wrong, in this case lazy. When in fact the lack of context provided by the mainstream media on this topic is what the article is actually about.
Yes, it is. And they failed, because they were lazy.
That’s the reader’s job. There are other articles that cover Concord and Concord’s flop in detail. Those topics have their place and it’s not in the meta discussion about the meta topic, by definition. Having to do the reader’s job of staying informed on a topic in articles about the meta discussion would prevent the discussion of the meta topic. Which is the goal of your argument.
In other words, your argument is intended to silence criticism of the mainstream media under the guise of imposing a moral value, incorrectly as it stands. If we followed your argument we would be unable to discuss anything because every discussion would have to have the context of what came before. What your argument calls for is lazy. If a reader wants to participate in discussions they have to take the time to get informed.
It’s pretty rich, you blaming the reader for the journalist not doing their jobs and being lazy.
Oh, by the way, you can stop it with the incredibly lengthy and verbose replies. I’m not reading it.
The only rich argument here is yours, trying to call journalists lazy for doing their jobs.
But they didn’t do their jobs. Haven’t you been reading what I’ve said?
What about “you’re definitely wrong” and there’s nothing you “can do to change my mind” do you not understand?
I recommend you read how my argument refuted your argument’s central point. An efficient argument is useless if it is incorrect.
It didn’t know. You were wrong from the start, and the longer you stuck by it, the more wrong you became.
And since you seem to have trouble with your memory, I’m going to repeat: there’s nothing you can do or say to change my mind, this is lazy journalism. At this point, you’re entertaining me by wasting your time.
I suggest you move on
The only way to know that for sure is to read what we both wrote. I did so I know. It’s entertaining and enlightening so I don’t mind.