Who defines it?

I just finished writing a lengthy and, I feel, very well thought out piece regarding themes in movies. It will pot I think Tuesday.

I believe it will be well worth the read. But that is, I guess, an open question.

I worked hard throughout the piece to not be accusatory or attacking, nor defending of anyone.

I was writing about some rather, ah, sensitive issues that some of my readers have passionate feelings and/or beliefs about, and there are some I agree with, others I disagree with.

The thing is, I think I have written something that would more appropriately be written by a sociologist, and probably with a couple decades between the events and the essay.

But the thought came to me, it was in my mind, and I set out to write it.

Which brings me to this little piece.

Who decides what is 'worth the read" and what isn't?

For example, I read a piece in the online rag the New York Times today that had me just about rolling on the floor with my sides splitting. As a comedy piece it was exceptional. As an example of seriously flawed writing that replaces intellectual consideration and accuracy with emotional color and toss-off lines admitting it is all conjecture being printed as fact, it was excellent.

As solid, accurate journalism it was a giant steaming pile of (word deleted due to extremely graphic content).

Yet I know most people who read it, as being the target audience, will A) accept it as face value, B) agree with everything in it, and C) not be reading it critically and therefore miss the blatant holes, contradictions and so forth.

In short, I find it a worthwhile read because I did not accept it at face value, recognized the slant, did my own research and am able to rise above the effort to find value in it.

But I would not recommend it to anybody.

So I defined it as not worthwhile.

But who am I to do so? Someone took the time to write what was 5 online pages. Surely there is value there?

3 comments:

Riot Kitty said...

LOL! I read the NY Times (among other papers) every day.

G said...

Define value.

NY Times, in my opinion, doesn't offer anything of "value". It is simply a mouthpiece for those who wish to pursue the idea of a "nanny" state.

Darth Weasel said...

Ah, but RK..you are wise enough to recognize outright fiction and blatant contradictions within a 2 paragraph sequence...

G, good point. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

As for the Times...you just described most media, my friend...