04-05-2008, 07:12 PM
|
#145 (permalink)
|
| ICHiBAN HoOT
Join Date: May 2006 Location: New Jersey
Posts: 12,841
| 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Layla  Do you guys actually have any knowledge of Gawker.com? Not to be rude or offensive to anyone, but you guys are really over thinking this. Gawker.com articles are meant to be really sarcastic, overly exaggerated, offensive, incite emotion and NOT BASED ON ANY TRUTH WHATSOEVER. The Gawker.com formula is to find a topic to write about, then create a story, again NOT BASED ON FACTS, to imply their opinion about the topic.
In this case, it's about Josh's episodes. What the reader is supposed to assume from reading the article is that the writer doesn't like Josh's latest work and that's it. But in order to be an entertaining/offensive/sarcastic etc. article, the author's opinion is cloaked in a fake story, i.e. Josh is surrounded by *******s. Actually saying "Josh Hartnett is in complete control of his career and making the decision to do these shorts, in my opinion, was not the smartest career move" is not as entertaining as "Josh is surrounded by *******s who use his fame and force him do things that do not help his career".
If Gawker.com had attached a disclaimer to this article about Josh it would say this:
"We at Gawker.com find Josh Hartnett's latest work awful, so we made up this story about Josh being surrounded by ******* friends hoping you, the reader, will read between the lines and see that all we are trying to say is that we find Josh's latest work to be awful. Whether Josh Hartnett is actually surrounded by ******* friends, we cannot actually prove, but nevertheless we think the way we presented our opinion using this made up story is nothing short of brilliant." | We admire and respect and love Josh here. Thats it in a nutshell.
Last edited by Plastic Flute : 04-05-2008 at 07:12 PM.
|
|  |
