Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did Peter Bright leave?
In 2019, after some pretty shocking charges: https://nypost.com/2020/03/19/ex-conde-nast-tech-reporter-pe... All his old articles had their byline removed.
Whoooooa, did not know this
How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
201–210 of 213 posts
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This is not the case, has historically never been the case, and unless human nature changes drastically, will never be the case. Whether you care about something has far more influence on your knowledge and relevance than the color of your skin. Also, by the way, she grew up in the United States.
It was not about the colour of the skin (you missed the part where I explicitly mentioned black people in my first comment, you probably missed that), but about the huge cultural difference between the US and India.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#203Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#204Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's like with movies: you can watch whatever trends on Rotten Tomatoes, or you can watch a whole bunch of random stuff at a film festival. Guaranteed you will find something at the festival that will never trend on RT but that you'll enjoy thoroughly. Not my experience at all. Turns out critics are actually decent at judging stuff, and good movies really are better than bad ones.
So how come I've seen so many great movies at film festivals that no critic writes about?
There are plenty of reasons a critic might not write about a film - perhaps it's not being widely distributed, or they don't think people will be interested, or it's difficult to write about, or they simply haven't heard of it.
(I've seen some great films at film festivals, but I absolutely have had festivals that were a complete bust. So I took exception mainly to your "guaranteed" claim, which you seem to be stepping back from now)
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#205Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very insightful piece of analysis. Why don’t you email the Ars editors your theory that they are corporate Condé stooges and see what they say? As I mentioned in a sibling comment it’s actually Advance that owns Ars, not Condé, and it’s a different leadership group.
Here's more insightful analysis: Go to the bottom of the Ars Technica page, behold the Conde Nast logo and the following text: CNMN Collection WIRED Media Group © 2024 Condé Nast. All rights reserved. Use of and/or registration on any portion of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement (updated 1/1/20) ... blah blah, no more company names. They publicly wave around the Conde Nast name. Not Advance. Not…
Your revised theory is that Ars is actually a Condé company because of the logo in the footer? Not sure that’s how corporate law works.
Take a minute and do some research. Advance owns Ars and the terms of the acquisition allow it to have total independence.
But again, I recommend you contact the Ars editors directly and share your theory that the Condé logo at the bottom of the page proves that they are in fact Condé stooges and have no editorial independence. See what they say. Their DMs are open.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not the case, has historically never been the case, and unless human nature changes drastically, will never be the case. Whether you care about something has far more influence on your knowledge and relevance than the color of your skin. Also, by the way, she grew up in the United States.
It was not about the colour of the skin (you missed the part where I explicitly mentioned black people in my first comment, you probably missed that), but about the huge cultural difference between the US and India.
You missed the part where I explicitly mentioned that she grew up in the United States, you probably missed that.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
So how come I've seen so many great movies at film festivals that no critic writes about?
There are plenty of reasons a critic might not write about a film - perhaps it's not being widely distributed, or they don't think people will be interested, or it's difficult to write about, or they simply haven't heard of it. (I've seen some great films at film festivals, but I absolutely have had festivals that were a complete bust. So I took exception mainly to your "guaranteed" claim, which you seem to be steppi…
I'm not stepping back from anything. Plenty of critics have hated films that end up being cult classics. A critic is no substitute for individual sensibilities. You can defer to them all you want, doesn't mean it's a great way to develop culture. But it is a great way to develop an insular culture.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of reasons a critic might not write about a film - perhaps it's not being widely distributed, or they don't think people will be interested, or it's difficult to write about, or they simply haven't heard of it. (I've seen some great films at film festivals, but I absolutely have had festivals that were a complete bust. So I took exception mainly to your "guaranteed" claim, which you seem to be steppi…
I'm not stepping back from anything. Plenty of critics have hated films that end up being cult classics. A critic is no substitute for individual sensibilities. You can defer to them all you want, doesn't mean it's a great way to develop culture. But it is a great way to develop an insular culture.
> I'm not stepping back from anything.
Well then, to put it more bluntly, I once went to a film festival and didn't find anything that I enjoyed thoroughly. So your guarantee is bollocks.
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
..and yet they dinged Childish Gambino's critically aclaimed album[1] - maybe the white nerds were contrarian, or just didn't "get" hip hop. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39284608
“Camp” was in no way critically acclaimed, it’s sitting at a 69/100 on metacritic which is squarely in the “eh, it’s alright” bracket
Sure, but Pitchfork rated it as 16/100, which is far from "eh, it's alright"
Re: How Condé Nast bought and destroyed Pitchfork
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s a little from column a and a little column b in practice. Puja Patel (editor in chief) is fairly open about being in a mission to increase diversity and specifically covering fewer white male bands. You may spin that as “wokeness” (note: the parent never used that phrase) but it’s one and the same to covering what younger listeners were interested in over most of the last decade too. In lots of ways raging again…
[flagged]
> A person of Indian ethnicity has no business [...]
If you post ethnic slurs to this site we will ban you. No more of this please.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle lately. That's a line at which we ban accounts, so please don't do that. Past explanation at https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....