{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/21/2015 7:39:36 PM
6
Forbes also asked for nerfing too! They are sucking the donkey off from both ends (that is a saying, correct?)
English
-
Forbes is just a outlet for different contributors. Not sure how people don't understand that articles don't represent the opinion of everyone at Forbes.
-
I do understand that. The point is that Forbes should at least mention they are publishing conflicting articles a week apart.
-
Lol no they shouldn't. I'm not going to look, but I am almost positive there is a part of the website that is a disclaimer that 'contributor' articles do not reflect the opinion of Forbes as a whole. It's not that hard to look at who wrote the articles and take it as their specific viewpoint. Also, it's good journalism to provide each side with an outlet for their stance, like this.
-
I disagree. Who cares about a disclaimer. I'm aware that they state that contributors views are not the views of Forbes. That is just a standard cop out. In my eyes it lessens Forbes credibility and not the 2 different writers.
-
Your logic is so flawed. Good journalism provides logical arguments for each side, which is what 2 articles with conflicting viewpoints does. Please read up on the fundamentals of journalism before you spew what you believe it to be.
-
Editado por TheFriendlyJerk: 7/22/2015 2:01:55 AMActually your logic is flawed. Yes, good journalism MAY (good journalism can also provide one side of an argument) provide both sides of an argument but it does it in a cohesive manner. Writing 2 separate articles, by separate authors, which don't mention the counter argument is not cohesive. Case in point is the OP of this post and several others pointing out Forbes' article against the need but no mention of the article for the nerf.
