I can largely agree with you- filtering the truth because it is inconvenient isn’t a good way to do things. If you want people to notice, they’ll notice your successes but they’ll also notice your failures. The cost of playing on the big stage is that when you fall- everyone sees. But- there is a case that media is largely not news- even the news. Most every outlet has an angle and people with lots of money don’t pay huge sums to run news media empires that themselves make very little profit, for no reason. It gives them a political and economic tool to use to steer the public where they want them.
So there’s a case to be made that by the phrasing etc- the clear gist there is Birds of Prey isn’t winner, it’s the biggest loser. And that sets the tone for the article, for those who read it- and for those who don’t that is all they see. Not that a critic or audiences didn’t like the film, but that it’s a big loser. And normally I could see just saying “how is that different than any other film...” but... this is that interchangeability versus equanimity thing. We aren’t talking about a film which generic copies of exist in spades- it’s a film that specifically centers on an all female cast but isn’t “Oscar bait” (rare enough) but also a superhero film with an all female cast.
So should the news not run headlines about BOP failing? I don’t think that’s right. But should they not be tone deaf, or worse, intentionally craft propaganda to associate “female” cast films with negativity? (I’m not saying they or anyone is doing it- I’m saying that would be worse than simply being tone deaf) that... I think there could be a case for. But... it gets complex. Some would say to treat the new guy on the job like anyone else and expect they know their shit and can hang; some would say you have to go a little easy until they catch up. Studios and creators don’t have lots of experience in this area- we have to remember that such films are uncommon- especially until recent history.
You mean like not quoting someone or giving them accredation because you have deemed them an unworthy human being? Yeah, filtering shit is a bitch.
.
That said, I am not going to debate the entire history of men and women and back to the two amoebas in a pool.
.
The entire way they sold the film was "wahman power;" they did interviews about the key or lead fucking misogynist; hey completely decimated many popular characters in the process, and they told you - repeatedly and LOUDLY - in the press that ANYONE who didn't enjoy this bullshit and screech for more was a woman hating incel. So, I genuinely don't give a good goddamn if they have to lay in the bed they made.
.
They want fairness and equality? They get to play by the rules they force on everyone else, and reap the same consequences. What's good for the goose.
Ah ha. Neat. You got pedantic on a single word out of context to call back to another discussion. Look at you, ready for pro journalism. This is why you get 700 paragraph replies from me. It seems I must be very clear and explain some things that I apologize, I thought would have been taken on assumption especially in context to this discussion.
Ok. So, if we want to be pedantic, all information is “filtered” if not through perception, through editing. What’s more- by default so much happens in the world that it would be impractical- almost impossible to report on it every single day. So at some point, someone has to take all that information and decide what is most relevant, most important, most interesting, etc.
Now, @xvarnah- you would either know what I meant because I said it clearly and are yourself filtering what I said, or you fail to comprehend the qualifier- re read the quote you cherry picked one word from and you will see I said “information shouldn’t be filtered because it is inconvenient.” The important qualifier there isn’t that ALL information should NEVER be filtered- it is specific, in this case, that information shouldn’t be filtered ONLY on the basis we find it inconvenient.
Qualifiers are used in English, American, Australian, and British English, I can’t say for certain others like Canadian English- to create a condition. They imply a statement isn’t absolute. I know you have trouble dealing with concepts when they aren’t in absolutes. I am not sure if that is a language barrier or what, but I’ve met many Canadians who understand the concept- but perhaps they are just well traveled? I don’t know. I’m trying to give the benefit of the doubt here.
Now there is, again this could be a linguistics things or a comprehension thing or- something (benefit of the doubt here,) a difference between “inconvenient” and “dangerous” “hate speech” “propaganda” “rhetoric” and so on. As a hypothetical- An article questioning new scientific studies that show women of men are genetically better at certain mental tasks, that could be inconvenient for some people’s narratives. A statistic showing that a common social justice cause is or isn’t as epidemic as some say- that could be inconvenient. And article quoting a cult leaders wise words or giving a white nationalist a news column because they’re a damn fine writer and stir up talk on your rag- those things are giving platforms and credibility to specific people.
But @xvarnah- surely you are aware, hopefully? That if we are talking about information itself- the SOURCE of information doesn’t have anything to do with the actual information right? The source is used to verify or help validate, to lend credibility- but we aren’t talking about a PAPER or STUDY as a whole which would include tribulation. The citations go separate from the information- it would be much harder to read a math problem if you put the name who who made every number and symbol and equation right in the formula would it not?
So let me put it simply and shortly, I’ll try both ways- explaining it to you in depth and giving you something for the shorter in attention of understanding.
If 1+1=2, as discovered by Janice C Math in 1403- and let us say you need 1+1 to equal 4- “filtering information for inconvenience” would be to omit or change “1+1=2” even though it is relevant, because it doesn’t support your theory. To the end of use- Janice C Math is irrelevant.
Or I will use this very topical simple example? Filtering information because it is inconvenient- is when I say “information shouldn’t be filtered because it is inconvenient” and then you @xvarnah, take a single word from my quote so that it now supports your desire to bring in a topic from another thread. So you DO at least intuitively grasp the concept as demonstrated.
.
That said, I am not going to debate the entire history of men and women and back to the two amoebas in a pool.
.
The entire way they sold the film was "wahman power;" they did interviews about the key or lead fucking misogynist; hey completely decimated many popular characters in the process, and they told you - repeatedly and LOUDLY - in the press that ANYONE who didn't enjoy this bullshit and screech for more was a woman hating incel. So, I genuinely don't give a good goddamn if they have to lay in the bed they made.
.
They want fairness and equality? They get to play by the rules they force on everyone else, and reap the same consequences. What's good for the goose.