First-person feature stories?

I'm not a fan of first person just popping up in stories. If it's an essay, display it as such and I'll know what I'm going to read (and can choose to skip it, depending on my opinion of the writer's credibility). But if it's a feature on someone else, seeing "I" or even "a reporter" just dropped in can make me stop reading.

I'll go back to spnited, "We are not the story. We are the storytellers." If I wanted to know what the reporter thought, felt or did, I'd ask the reporter, kind of like the postscript to "E:60" stories.

 

I would have much rather seen that story as a reported piece instead of a first person piece. It was problematic then, and remains so now. I don't know what that piece has do with any of this, since I'm not sure Janay Rice decided to make writing a career, other than it's another chapter in your usual game of trying to antagonize me because I don't keep it as real as you and your homies when it comes to media critiques. So stipulated. You keep it so very real. Let the record reflect it, going forward.

 

I have no problem with you. At all.

I actually value your opinion and insight.

And, I get that you're not in a position to criticize ESPN. That's cool.

But, I'd rather you say that than act like any criticism of ESPN is unfair.

 

Now Paw Patrol is stuck in my head. Again.

 

Here's a time I think it worked.

Women Who Are Bad in Bed - Ladies, You're Not as Good as You Think

 

I don't know when I've ever acted like any criticism of ESPN was unfair. Seriously. I probably waded into too many debates, most of them years ago, where I stuck up for magazine pieces written by friends. But I'd like to believe I did so because I actually enjoyed the work, not the friend. Hell coworkers of mine have written plenty of bad stuff. So have I. Rather than reflexively defend things I don't actually believe, I just breeze past it. Is there some evidence of me defending stuff I'd otherwise philosophically reject, were it done by another company, that I'm not aware of?

If so, I renounce it!

 

LOL.

 

Not to kiss your ass, but I'll take the tradeoff of you being protective of your employer and friends for you being intellectually honest in journalism discussions that intersect with politics and social issues. (The "Rolling Stone" Jackie story comes to mind, but there have been plenty.) I don't think many here (or at large) evince that kind of honesty, particularly in the Trump era.

 

Here is a story that I mostly love, but I also think is messy as hell, and maybe could have lost its first person in the middle and been improved, that is worth debating on its merits. I'll argue for it, but I can also see the counter argument: What purpose does Sullivan's digression in the middle of this piece serve about the fight he witnessed as a kid?

The Final Comeback of Axl Rose

I think it's also important to stipulate we're mostly talking about high-level, ambitious stuff here. Maybe it's in a magazine, maybe it's for a website, but we're not talking about the first person piece about cover high school volleyball. (And I wrote about a lot of high school volleyball!) As I've said a lot of times, I don't like hard and fast rules about anything, but it has to be a pretty special newspaper piece to include first person in my eyes. Newspapers have a different relationship with readers than magazines or long-ass stories you read on the web.

 

Me too.

We just need to worry about @LongTimeListener. That guy is famous for running off good posters.

 

The correct phrasing is "in the Age of Trump."

 

Shit.

Hey, there's a reason I'm at my cubicle instead of at Wembley covering the futbol.