I don't know, there has to be some sort of middle ground between being cynical and being a total dork that would like that type of article. I think he's more centrist than you're giving him credit.
follow him on twitter.. it's non stop. I'm almost ready to stop following him because his posts are so vapid sometimes.
Faraone used to be a decent journalist years ago.. lately he's turned into 'angry reporter with a beef with everyone'. And while many like that style of reporting, I just find it very much a turn off to reading what he writes because it turns into a bitchfest and less journalistic.
Are you a journalist or a quasi-blogger with a big chip on your shoulder? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways (and being taken seriously as a journalist)
So some college kids like coffee, and like visiting different coffee shops. Was it Woodward and Bernstein-type journalism? No, but I read the article and it was worth the 3mins of my time it required. I don't get why he was so fired up about it.
I read the globe article too. Sure it was kinda pointless but interesting to know what kids are up to these days.. and a nice 'social' piece about college kids doing something that didn't involve them getting arrested, drunk, or some other such silliness that we seem read about in the news these days.
Of course Faraone need to write an entire article about it... he just took a fluff piece and ripped it apart when it wasn't really needed. Really don't understand his beef with it, if he wasn't interested why did he read it, and most certainly, why did he write a piece about it!
Section G exists for fluff. I mean, sometimes there is stuff that passes for new, but I might just think that because I think it is news. But critiquing an article in that section for being fluff is insane.
Also, I will once again hype up the value of reading the print version or a close electronic equivalent. Were this on the front page, or the from page of the Metro section, or in any part of those sections, yes, the argument could be made that the Globe's decline is continuing. But it was in the fluff section, so Farone can eat sand.
because Faraone finally realized that he'll never be the Gawker/Buzzfeed/Slate/ Salon angry lefty in the sun. He's too stoned and too talentless. He is literally the Howie Carr of the left.
Comments
What's wrong with that guy?
Why is he so cynical about everything? What a terrible way to live.
Cynical
I don't know, there has to be some sort of middle ground between being cynical and being a total dork that would like that type of article. I think he's more centrist than you're giving him credit.
follow him
follow him on twitter.. it's non stop. I'm almost ready to stop following him because his posts are so vapid sometimes.
Faraone used to be a decent journalist years ago.. lately he's turned into 'angry reporter with a beef with everyone'. And while many like that style of reporting, I just find it very much a turn off to reading what he writes because it turns into a bitchfest and less journalistic.
Are you a journalist or a quasi-blogger with a big chip on your shoulder? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways (and being taken seriously as a journalist)
Seriously...
So some college kids like coffee, and like visiting different coffee shops. Was it Woodward and Bernstein-type journalism? No, but I read the article and it was worth the 3mins of my time it required. I don't get why he was so fired up about it.
yeah
I read the globe article too. Sure it was kinda pointless but interesting to know what kids are up to these days.. and a nice 'social' piece about college kids doing something that didn't involve them getting arrested, drunk, or some other such silliness that we seem read about in the news these days.
Of course Faraone need to write an entire article about it... he just took a fluff piece and ripped it apart when it wasn't really needed. Really don't understand his beef with it, if he wasn't interested why did he read it, and most certainly, why did he write a piece about it!
This is what I don't get.
If it was such a shitty article, why take the time and energy to recap? And if you recap a shitty article, then wouldn't your recap be shit squared?
"It's about ethics in coffee
"It's about ethics in coffee journalism."
It was in section G, it should be noted
Section G exists for fluff. I mean, sometimes there is stuff that passes for new, but I might just think that because I think it is news. But critiquing an article in that section for being fluff is insane.
Also, I will once again hype up the value of reading the print version or a close electronic equivalent. Were this on the front page, or the from page of the Metro section, or in any part of those sections, yes, the argument could be made that the Globe's decline is continuing. But it was in the fluff section, so Farone can eat sand.
That chip is there
because Faraone finally realized that he'll never be the Gawker/Buzzfeed/Slate/ Salon angry lefty in the sun. He's too stoned and too talentless. He is literally the Howie Carr of the left.
Ooh, that's cold.
Not necessarily wrong, just cold.
It's an article
in the "Double Shot" subsection of Boston Globe's "Food and Drink". Coffee is not exactly a subject that requires hard-hitting journalism.
"These are some seriously
"These are some seriously down-to-earth guys who just happen to have great abs."
Two of them are kickers, c'mon now.
Faraone did write a great article on semi-pro players in NE, in particular Odin Lloyd's old team, the Boston Bandits.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisf4c82a7988/a-season-with-the-toughest-footb...