Alright, I've said this at least thirty times, but I really need to explain myself here. I hate Gizmodo. I used to love them. I read their articles all the time. And they do post useful information. But I hate how many of their articles are don't even try to avoid bias from the article. It's stupid, and annoying.
Take this one (watch for language), about Ashton Kutcher "leaving Twitter". The news here isn't much more than a blip. Ashton Kutcher is leaving Twitter, explain why, the end. Now, sure, they add in how stupid it is. And while I agree with them on that point, the main problem is that they make it the main point of the article. Sure, Ashton Kutcher is leaving Twitter, but he's a coward! Omg! News news news! I bet viewers will flock to this article because of how interesting the title is! I understand there needs to be appeal to draw viewers in. I get that. But the article itself doesn't have to be filled with the same stuff the title implies. But this article goes even further.
They go on to talk about their opinion on Joe Paterno, someone who's only indirectly related to this article. I myself disagree with their opinion on what happened, but, still. It's stupid. No one wants to read an article about Ashton Kutcher, only to learn that the author of the article, Mat Honan, thinks that Paterno got what he deserved. That's not something that makes people intrigued to read the piece, or like the article. It's irrelevant and annoying.
And that's why I stopped reading Gizmodo.
Take this one (watch for language), about Ashton Kutcher "leaving Twitter". The news here isn't much more than a blip. Ashton Kutcher is leaving Twitter, explain why, the end. Now, sure, they add in how stupid it is. And while I agree with them on that point, the main problem is that they make it the main point of the article. Sure, Ashton Kutcher is leaving Twitter, but he's a coward! Omg! News news news! I bet viewers will flock to this article because of how interesting the title is! I understand there needs to be appeal to draw viewers in. I get that. But the article itself doesn't have to be filled with the same stuff the title implies. But this article goes even further.
They go on to talk about their opinion on Joe Paterno, someone who's only indirectly related to this article. I myself disagree with their opinion on what happened, but, still. It's stupid. No one wants to read an article about Ashton Kutcher, only to learn that the author of the article, Mat Honan, thinks that Paterno got what he deserved. That's not something that makes people intrigued to read the piece, or like the article. It's irrelevant and annoying.
And that's why I stopped reading Gizmodo.
