Life of Reilly: The rise, fall and rise again

I guess I just don't see SportsCenter as such an inherently white enterprise as you do.

 

Talk about naive. Tell ya what, I'm gonna hire a new producer for the View and he's gonna replace the entire cast with old white dudes. We'll see how well the viewership holds up.

 

No, I don't. But I'm not the one suggesting there was an agenda. You have no evidence to support that other than your own thoughts that they didn't fit, which came through hindsight. Maybe you thought it at the time. But you don't know what discussions were had behind the scenes to lead to them placing Hill and Smith together. You make assumptions that fit the conclusion you've drawn, and then you declare there was an agenda. Unless someone who had access to the conversations at ESPN at the time has said there was one, you have no evidence other than suppositions.

 

SC ratings are back up with an Indian-American and a black woman as the anchors. ESPN has been trumpeting it. Guess they didn't need those white anchors, huh?

 

You probably aren't very good at syllogisms.

 

I'm great. Just don't like to assume facts not in evidence.

 

Yeah, I don't think I've heard them calling Donald Trump a racist, either.

 

Several versions, hence the (maybe).

Writing Is Easy; You Just Open a Vein and Bleed – Quote Investigator

Quotation Controversy--Writing and Bleeding | The Hemingway Society

www.actuallyitsrobpentydotorg.com/writing-is-easy-blah-blah-blah-blood/

 

But, wait, that didn't happen until months after they were named anchors. And you said it wasn't hindsight that made you think they weren't a good fit. You knew it all along. But now it's justified by stuff that happened half a year after they were hired. But it wasn't hindsight. Not at all.

 

Listen, bro, I get it. You read some stuff on 4chan or Reddit or wherever about how the SJWs took over ESPN. It resonated with you. Probably for reasons you don't like to think about. We get it. Doesn't make your assumptions right. Just makes them feel right to you.

 

Well, one can write that many words. It’s just hard for it to be good. Trouble is, any longform is almost always deemed degrees of good. The effort alone garners a B or whatever.

Now, I’d argue some of that is postmodernism at play, as in “oh, well, it’s my truth, so it’s the truth, so instead of a real ending I’m just gonna essay my way through the last 1,000 words.”

 

It's both, ideally. Deeply reported and beautifully written.

By percentage, I don't think there's more bad work being done than in any age before. 98% of all writing is not great, and exists in service of the 2% that is great. Pretty much the ratio forever.

I think the bottomless nature of the internet page is a problem for young writers. Too tempting to go long. But so is the way your copy looks on a computer screen - it seems polished even when it's not. Typewriters were better a learning tool for failing your way through a manuscript.

Also, it's much easier to find bad work than it used to be.