I agree. What he's doing is blogging. He's basically doing the same stuff I do on my blog or on Facebook. Not to put down blogging, but now that I think about it, the only difference I see between what he does and what Flayrah and Dogpatch do is that the latter two are team efforts, which makes for more expansive blogging in a variety of styles. But both are still over-glorified blogs.
Let's see now. Who would I want to get news from? Site A, B or C? None of the above, really.
I think, if we look at what is perhaps the most professional news outlet to tackle the recent situation, Rolling Stone, we see that their professionalism led them to consider the staggering lack of evidence to substantiate The Furry Raiders extreme hate-worthiness. Which of our three news outlets was that professional? None of the above. All went with reporting on and fanning hysteria as if hysteria was fact.
Which one did not give me a hard time for insisting on looking deeper into the situation? Which thought the service of truth even worth getting a reporter inside The Furry Raiders? Well, you could say The Furry Times got one in, but then turned around and labeled their own reporter with the same unreasoning hysteria.
Considering this universal disregard for truth that left individuals in the fandom with no choice but to do their own investigating, I'd say any of these 3 news outlets would have to have a lot of damn gall to even raise the question of professionalism.
I agree. What he's doing is blogging. He's basically doing the same stuff I do on my blog or on Facebook. Not to put down blogging, but now that I think about it, the only difference I see between what he does and what Flayrah and Dogpatch do is that the latter two are team efforts, which makes for more expansive blogging in a variety of styles. But both are still over-glorified blogs.
Let's see now. Who would I want to get news from? Site A, B or C? None of the above, really.
I think, if we look at what is perhaps the most professional news outlet to tackle the recent situation, Rolling Stone, we see that their professionalism led them to consider the staggering lack of evidence to substantiate The Furry Raiders extreme hate-worthiness. Which of our three news outlets was that professional? None of the above. All went with reporting on and fanning hysteria as if hysteria was fact.
Which one did not give me a hard time for insisting on looking deeper into the situation? Which thought the service of truth even worth getting a reporter inside The Furry Raiders? Well, you could say The Furry Times got one in, but then turned around and labeled their own reporter with the same unreasoning hysteria.
Considering this universal disregard for truth that left individuals in the fandom with no choice but to do their own investigating, I'd say any of these 3 news outlets would have to have a lot of damn gall to even raise the question of professionalism.