this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
1 points (53.8% liked)
Shows and TV
401 readers
194 users here now
Open discussion of Media / Shows / Television
- Be nice
- Don't go off topic
- Don't rage farm
Other communities
We are still open to mod application, please comment on this post: https://lemm.ee/post/40675177
founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well that article was a waste of space. Not sure why GQ thought any of that was interesting or worth anyone’s time.
What didn't you like about the article?
Aside from all the advertisements peppered inside and out of the article, personally, it felt like a bunch of highly-specific and yet somehow random and inconsistent advice about a topic that is highly individual/personal and doesn't need this kind of 'explainer.'
Some examples:
They say local news is the best kind of news, which in theory yes that was true, but in reality a massive amount of American's local news is owned and operated by Sinclair, a biased conservative company. Local news used to be the best kind of news, and may still be in a few select regions, but for most people it's just not anymore.
Who does this help? It's cute, but useless.
That's a highly subjective opinion that is completely dependent on the specific show, the native language, and the viewers' personal preference. I watch dubbed anime, but exclusively subtitled live action. That's how I do it, I don't care how other people do it. Again, personal preference.
K...
Entirely unnecessary and obvious advice from 1991. Commercials have always sucked, and we have always had a mute button.
I'll scroll whenever I want to.
I'm sure I'm overreacting, but I just can't think of who specifically this article was for. It reads like they ran out of things to write and needed to fill space.