Frequently I find myself apologizing to my readers for not utilizing traditonal journalistic tactics when submitting my conclusions and publishing my work. Hopefully folks are able to cut me some slack when I cut corners and jump to hastily derived conclusions, but what do you expect from a lightly rafficked blog? [Ed: This is only temporary.] But what's the excuse when a metropolitan daily runs an article that bears little resemblance to its headline? I've come across two recent articles that made me scrtach my head and wonder if all reading comprehension skills had abandoned me.
First is an entertainment piece by Libby Hill of the Los Angeles Times. In a profile of Peter ATencio, the deirector of the Warner Bros feaure "Keanu" starring Comedy Central duo Key & Peele. The plot of which centers around a lonely guy's obsession with a found stary cat that once belonged to a rug dealer. The headline revels the director was upset by the presence of too much "cute kitty" marketing for the film.The film disappointed a the box office, so I'm expecting a hard-hitting expose on the myopia of studio film marketig, but istead readers receive a tongue-in-cheek profile of a cat-lover.
Director of 'Keanu,' Key and Peele film featuring cute kitty, upset at too much cute kitty marketing
I've see an essay or two about sponsored content confusing readers who can't tell the difference between advertorial & native content. A playful tone is fine for entertainment content, but how does it play in an arena where people are looking for hard-hitting factual content: sports?
Los Angeles Laker fans were no doubt surprised at the size of former Cleveland center Timofey Mozgov's free agent contract witht he team given his rather under the radar contributions. The author offers several statistics confirming Mozgov's mediocrity. So why that would make anyone think that paying $64 million for mediocrity is ok?
Feel free to share links to other non-linear newspaper writing that you come across in the comments.