Just handed out the updoots left right and sideways myself, because my points on this video comment just hit the triple digits (!!!). What a time to be alive.
And your appeal is to what, exactly? Answer: It's to the "authority" of an opinion offered by an unidentified newcomer, with no indication why the rest of us shouldn't dismiss the opinion as unhelpful noise.
In contrast, points and longevity serve as a rough, very-democratic measure of a poster's cumulative contributions to the community here, and thus (indirectly) of how well the poster has grokked the local cultural norms. That, in turn, gives readers useful information about the weight that they might wish to consider giving to the view(s) expressed by the poster.
(Apropos of which: I see that you still have a total of -1 points for the all of five days that your account has been active.)
Wow, thanks; I was wondering if anyone would notice - there was one or two a while later, and I was happy someone got it.
Then came back just then after a few busy days and had to do a massive double take at the number of upvotes; I probably shouldn't discuss the actual number, but it's my most upvoted reply ever - there must be a lot more punsters here! :)
I used the reference to the NZ "Beached As" due to its brilliance, if you haven't seen it it's a silly treat especially if you love the accent.
And again I greatly enjoyed that sardonic tone of the original video, which I saved for future repeats.
holy crap amazing. Why doesn't news editorialize like this anymore like this reporter did at the end? Simple, obvious, and stated fairly. You don't always need to talk to the guy who thought the whale hailstorm was still a good idea.
Old school journalism? That kind of reporting takes too long — two minutes until the event is shown — to lay out the facts in a responsible way... giving everyone a clear idea of the initial problem, the proposed solution, and what the proposed solution was supposed to accomplish.
Aside from taking too long, it fails to manipulate the audience by giving them a prepackaged take that aligns with the viewers' preconcieved bias, enrages the opposition, and generates audience affinity with the news outlet. Where's the profit in that?
I'm a little confused by this take: editorializing doesn't happen anymore, which is sad. It doesn't happen anymore because editorializing occurs, which is good, because editorializing is bad?
[0] https://youtu.be/V6CLumsir34