Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005) • Hacker News Board

Re: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005)

#21

Post by khalilravanna » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

azeotropic wrote: post #7

spyckie2 wrote: post #5

Wow - this is old journalism at its best. A few things really stand out: - a 36(!!) minute masterpiece, and difficult to cut anything out to make it shorter without losing something - the journalist covered both sides of the story, and did so beautifully, allowing us to enter into his shoes and feel like we were in the action, talking to the people on both sides - both sides were given more than fair treatment to voi…

I disagree. This shows some of the worst flaws of modern journalism: The smarmy tone, writing the story about personalities rather than facts, the narcissistic urge of the journalist to insert himself into the story. It's a travesty.

I think if this was masquerading as journalism I'd agree with you but it's even categorized under "Essays and Memoir" which I think is pretty accurate. It's not objective news reporting as much as weaving a tale from a subjective viewpoint, conveying an interesting series of anecdotes.

Re: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005)

#22

Post by bbrian » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:18 PM UTC

gcb0 wrote: post #17

> shout ‘Free Tibet’ into the startled [chinese] premier’s car. When the pictures of his solo protest appeared on Channel 4 News, he lost his job at London Underground. what a pathetic society.

Yeah, that wasn’t very clear. He hardly lost his job because of the politician action outside work, is that legal? Maybe it caused him to miss too many days of work and that was used to fire him, maybe by management who wanted to appear faithful to the establishment.

Re: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005)

#23

Post by spyckie2 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:02 AM UTC

azeotropic wrote: post #16

pjc50 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The confrontations were always there - the two sides were engaged in regular confrontations for years . If anything the journalist tries to defuse it at one point by pulling the "I'm with the press" card, and eventually sets up a non-confrontation reminisce between the two old men of the old sides.

I don't see how bringing the activist into a bar full of hunters and then announcing that you're his protector is anything like trying to diffuse conflict. Acting like a macho tough guy and flippantly giving a library card as a press credential when you get called out is a pretty cheeky thing to do.

> smarmy, narcissistic, rooting for blood, lizard brain, macho guy, flippantly, cheeky

Just letting you know about a blind spot you may have. These words I'm highlighting are the exact opposite of factual - they are all your opinion that the author of the article is full of himself, and for your personal growth, I'd encourage you to try not to assume that about people.

Re: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005)

#24

Post by spyckie2 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:23 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #8

azeotropic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This shows some of the worst flaws of modern journalism: The smarmy tone, writing the story about personalities rather than facts, the narcissistic urge of the journalist to insert himself into the story. It's a travesty.

So, what's the alternative? And would it be as interesting to read? People generally like the human interest aspect. Especially as this isn't "news" but more a form of anthropology, a visit to two secretive warring tribes of rural Britain.

The human interest aspect is the whole point of it. If there were no humans, there wouldn't even need to be a law about fox hunting, so if you take the human interest away, there is no issue.

I think part of my praise of this piece is because most modern issues lack the anthropological side to the conversation, when often it is the most important part. Policy makers (and that is everyone in a democracy) that only care about the "rightness" of a policy and do not get into the people's lives that are being affected by it tend to create poor solutions and only make the problem worse.

I love that this article goes beyond anthropology into conflict resolution. An arbitrator takes two warring parties and brings them together to be able to discuss their issues. While this author doesn't have an arbitration background, his bringing of the two parties together does what any good arbitrator do - cause each party to see the humanity and point of view of the other, and be able to "agree to disagree" without getting worked up. I don't know what else to say except that it's great journalism - it's great reporting on the complexity and maturity of modern human society.

Re: Fantastic Mr. Fox (2005)

#25

Post by sammcgrail » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 5:28 AM UTC

khalilravanna wrote: post #21

azeotropic wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. This shows some of the worst flaws of modern journalism: The smarmy tone, writing the story about personalities rather than facts, the narcissistic urge of the journalist to insert himself into the story. It's a travesty.

I think if this was masquerading as journalism I'd agree with you but it's even categorized under "Essays and Memoir" which I think is pretty accurate. It's not objective news reporting as much as weaving a tale from a subjective viewpoint, conveying an interesting series of anecdotes.

Probably wrong