That’s because we are having a meta discussion about a meta discussion. To put it another way, we are engaged in a self-referencing discussion. To talk about such a discussion in solely general terms would render the rhetoric useless to anyone outside of academics. We would have to write in completely mathematical terms.
Again, it’s not laziness, but off topic. The term in essay writing is paragraph drift, but since it would be off topic for the article as a whole a more accurate term might be article drift.
A hypothetical complaint about cat memes not getting mainstream coverage is a meta discussion about coverage not cat memes.
The point about bringing up Concord’s flop is that it in particular is comparable to other media that the mainstream news does report on, such as expensive movie flops, but it still isn’t being covered. Why Concord flopped has nothing to do with that and that kind of context wouldn’t add anything to the article’s central point. The article also uses Joker 2 as an example, but doesn’t go into why Joker 2 flopped for the same reason. Why Concord flopped would be as off topic as taking about Concord’s game play mechanics, while possibly interesting, they aren’t relevant to the discussion either. Just because Concord’s flop is relevant to this discussion doesn’t mean all things related to Concord are relevant.
These kind of meta discussions about media coverage are important as they are a self-examination of a critical institution. A self-referential discussion is its own kind of genre and has its own rules, or guidelines, for what it is and isn’t relevant. So it’s definitely important that people understand that and don’t mistake this useful kind of journalism as lazy. Trying to placate this misunderstanding would render the article less rhetorically effective on delivering its central point. It’s like Paul’s analogy in Dune. He shouldn’t have to cut his dominate hand off to please his space jihadists. That wouldn’t be useful. edit: typo
The article is not about Concord’s flop. The article is about the mainstream media not covering video games.
Discussing off topic details is off topic. One example being the main example does not make everything related to that example relevant to the discussion. Video games news media outlets have been discussing Concord’s flop in detail. The mainstream news media has not. It’s not a valid to criticism to point out that the article didn’t discuss Concord’s flop in the meta discussion about video game coverage. Kotaku isn’t being lazy or hypocritical. The author wrote a rhetorically effective article. Everything in the article relates back to their central point. Which again is that mainstream media doesn’t take video games seriously.
It’s important to drive this home. Relating back to the thesis in a persuasive essay is a core aspect of that genre.
Sony’s Concord might be the biggest entertainment failure of all time, so why wasn’t it news?
This is the question that the article attempts to answer. Everything in the article should relate back to a thesis that answers this question. The details of Concord’s flop do not relate back to the thesis to answer this question in anyway. edit: typos
You put more detail in your extremely verbose comments than the effort put into writing this article.
It’s a lazy, ridiculous article that fails to provide context, while also hypocritically failing to meet any kind of investigative standard that they’re criticizing.
Now, you can write another 500 to 1000 words in a comment, and I’m gonna ignore it because Because nothing you could possibly say will change that. It’s lazy journalism, and that’s that.
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.
Even in your own reply, you provide some context for what you’re discussing. For it to be lacking in the article is just lazy.
That’s because we are having a meta discussion about a meta discussion. To put it another way, we are engaged in a self-referencing discussion. To talk about such a discussion in solely general terms would render the rhetoric useless to anyone outside of academics. We would have to write in completely mathematical terms.
Again, it’s not laziness, but off topic. The term in essay writing is paragraph drift, but since it would be off topic for the article as a whole a more accurate term might be article drift.
A hypothetical complaint about cat memes not getting mainstream coverage is a meta discussion about coverage not cat memes.
The point about bringing up Concord’s flop is that it in particular is comparable to other media that the mainstream news does report on, such as expensive movie flops, but it still isn’t being covered. Why Concord flopped has nothing to do with that and that kind of context wouldn’t add anything to the article’s central point. The article also uses Joker 2 as an example, but doesn’t go into why Joker 2 flopped for the same reason. Why Concord flopped would be as off topic as taking about Concord’s game play mechanics, while possibly interesting, they aren’t relevant to the discussion either. Just because Concord’s flop is relevant to this discussion doesn’t mean all things related to Concord are relevant.
These kind of meta discussions about media coverage are important as they are a self-examination of a critical institution. A self-referential discussion is its own kind of genre and has its own rules, or guidelines, for what it is and isn’t relevant. So it’s definitely important that people understand that and don’t mistake this useful kind of journalism as lazy. Trying to placate this misunderstanding would render the article less rhetorically effective on delivering its central point. It’s like Paul’s analogy in Dune. He shouldn’t have to cut his dominate hand off to please his space jihadists. That wouldn’t be useful. edit: typo
Discussing the topic isn’t off-topic.
The article is not about Concord’s flop. The article is about the mainstream media not covering video games.
Discussing off topic details is off topic. One example being the main example does not make everything related to that example relevant to the discussion. Video games news media outlets have been discussing Concord’s flop in detail. The mainstream news media has not. It’s not a valid to criticism to point out that the article didn’t discuss Concord’s flop in the meta discussion about video game coverage. Kotaku isn’t being lazy or hypocritical. The author wrote a rhetorically effective article. Everything in the article relates back to their central point. Which again is that mainstream media doesn’t take video games seriously.
It’s important to drive this home. Relating back to the thesis in a persuasive essay is a core aspect of that genre.
This is the question that the article attempts to answer. Everything in the article should relate back to a thesis that answers this question. The details of Concord’s flop do not relate back to the thesis to answer this question in anyway. edit: typos
You put more detail in your extremely verbose comments than the effort put into writing this article.
It’s a lazy, ridiculous article that fails to provide context, while also hypocritically failing to meet any kind of investigative standard that they’re criticizing.
Now, you can write another 500 to 1000 words in a comment, and I’m gonna ignore it because Because nothing you could possibly say will change that. It’s lazy journalism, and that’s that.
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 more than a few words.