Quote:
Originally Posted by freddyg12
Hence, I posted it was a wrap up. Not sure what you meant in 2nd sentence, or rather who it was directed to.
If you haven't scoured the web for every article about it, this one shows you that a few journalists have done pieces on it. Yet to see anyone coming to Snyder's defense & saying this suit makes sense as a PR move.
|
I was talking about the post. The article is titled and
The Hits Just Keep Coming, but really it's just a wrap up of the same story told multiple ways. To compare/contrast; the SB started with a whimper due to the snow. If a week later they rehashed all the stories about the snow, you would not title it the snow keeps coming - no, the snow came and reporters found various ways to report on the same story. That is what happened with the Snyder story.
In contrast; the SB started with Snow, then Seatgate, then the (minor) roof leak, and the filing of the lawsuit by Cowboys season ticket holders. There, the hits (or different negative situations) just kept coming. So, the title may have been appropriate in that context.
In DS' context, the only way you could say the hits keep coming is if you are referring to negative articles about the same situation, and in that case the post is as i said, in a position to keep the hits coming simply by repeating and rehashing the same information over and over.
You want to make it a wrap up article then say Reviewing Snyder's gaffe, or what the press says, or whatever. That's fine. My point is simply that there wasnt a new "hit" or negative situation w/regards to DS in that "article"