May 15, 2023·edited May 15, 2023Liked by Simone Stolzoff
you raise a valid concern, but it’s still generally fair to hear the devils advocate to conventional wisdom, even if it feels counterproductive. Like even if someone is justifiably “cancelled,” that person deserves ability to rectify it to some degree, whether that be thru a defense lawyer, therapist or journalist. I do agree that this specific subject seems pretty dispicable, and don’t think the article will change my mind. but the journalist isnt necessarily any more incorrect, to sensationalize the story in this way, than anyone else providing all the coverage on it
I viewed the Times piece more as a nuanced picture of a troubled human living with the consequences of her previous actions than amplifying her voice. It reminded me the story of a real human doesn't have the same ending as the biopic(s).
you raise a valid concern, but it’s still generally fair to hear the devils advocate to conventional wisdom, even if it feels counterproductive. Like even if someone is justifiably “cancelled,” that person deserves ability to rectify it to some degree, whether that be thru a defense lawyer, therapist or journalist. I do agree that this specific subject seems pretty dispicable, and don’t think the article will change my mind. but the journalist isnt necessarily any more incorrect, to sensationalize the story in this way, than anyone else providing all the coverage on it
I viewed the Times piece more as a nuanced picture of a troubled human living with the consequences of her previous actions than amplifying her voice. It reminded me the story of a real human doesn't have the same ending as the biopic(s).