If I can make a request of the people of the internet:
- Actually read the story, not just the headline
- Interpret what that story is actually saying
- If there’s an original source — click through, read THAT
- Share the original source
- If you can’t find the original source: might be BS!
Sorry gang, I gotta go a little deeper here on this thought.
The inciting incident for the above is due to a story I saw going around related to Star Wars, namely…
“RUMOR: Disney to Remove Star Wars Sequel Trilogy From Timeline to Resume Focus on Original Characters“, from a website called Geeks and Gamers.
Pretty bold stuff, right? An entire chunk of the Star Wars universe being cut out. Without digging too deep into the oddity of the story itself, it’s a great demonstration of the above scenario.
I’d never heard of Geeks and Gamers, and I like to think I’m a little too online. That’s question mark number one.
Then I read the article itself, which uses bold, almost comically dramatic wording like…
For years, talk of resetting the sequel trilogy has been dismissed as wishful thinking from frustrated fans.
But the situation has changed.
Bolding mine, but you can basically feel someone writing their monologue as they put together this story.
Then you go a little further…
Disney doesn’t need to erase the sequel trilogy to move on from it. They just need to make it… optional.
What news source writes like this?
Okay, okay, who wrote this.
Per the bottom of the article, the author1 is Marvin Montanaro, a source who has been quoted — per his byline — by Breitbart and the US Federal Government. The latter, I guess that’s cool. The former…that tells me a little bit more about the author.
But regardless, are they just making this up? Or is there a source? It’s generally best to not just go with a big news story coming from a site you’ve never heard of2.
Their linked source?
“EXCLUSIVE: Disney Executives Reportedly Ready to Reset Star Wars and Splinter the Sequel Trilogy“, on That Park Place.
Besides the fact that it’s accredited to someone named WDW Pro, start to ask yourself: would a key source for movie news be a theme park website?
Okay, maybe they got a scoop out of nowhere. What are they saying? Again, read the actual article.
According to a source close to Lucasfilm, we now believe that the final season of Ahsoka (as confirmed in recent interviews) is Filoni’s last chance to get ratings for this era of Star Wars. If it does not get ratings, the plan told to us is that there will be a “mini-project” to wrap up the Mandoverse and pivot back to the original Star Wars characters. More importantly, we have been informed that Disney executives have impressed upon Dave Filoni that the Sequel Trilogy needs to be “branched off”.
If. We believe. Okay, you’re already hedging your bet here.
The next line?
The way to do that, we believe based on conversations…
Okay, you’re an opinion piece now.
So we’ll see. Jon Favreau is meeting with Dave Filoni next week about the future of Star Wars.
Now your exclusive story…is based on if, maybe, and we’ll see. And depends on how a meeting goes next week.
Making a bold stance on quicksand there, gang. Your exclusive is your hunch. Awesome to put your thoughts, guesses, and opinions out there — even if weighed by sourcing — but it remains yours. It’s not news.
Oh, and it’s probably worth noting? Our buddy Marvin mentioned above? Also works at That Park Place. So…he has a reason to link across. Sure forgot to mention “our sister site” in there.
But I digress. It’s not just about engaging with articles like the above, and tearing them apart like I did. That’s just the most egregious version of it.
We live in a world now where people post fancy looking JPEGs on Instagram and Facebook with quotes, statements or headlines.
Just because someone can design well or owns a domain doesn’t mean that they are an informative source on anything.
Read the rest of the post. Read the whole image. Do they quote a source? Is the source linked? If it’s just a website, like “Source: Forbes” — can you find it with a quick Google? You’d think some serious entertainment news would have some Google juice, right?
If it seems like bullshit, guess what? You can choose to not share it. Not click. Not repost.
There’s another idea to the left of this, which is probably left for another ranting blog post one of these days, but I’ll just put the brief versions here…
- A Rotten Tomatoes score is not a score out of 100. It’s a percentage of the reviews which they have catalogued where the reviewer has indicated to them that the review can be considered positive. It could be a 6 out of 10, a 10 out of 10, a 3 out of 5, but generally, just positive. They liked it. Maybe loved it.
- On reviews themselves: it’s the opinion of the individual writer who wrote the piece. Get familiar with bylines. You’ll find the people with tastes like yours. Follow them. Follow the sites they go to, especially since basically everyone is freelance these days. It’s not how “IGN” feels. It’s not how “Kotaku” feels. It’s how “the person that this website assigned to the review felt about it.”
- No, no one got paid for that review to be positive. Or negative. In fact, they’re probably lucky that they get paid, full stop.
- If you like something and someone else doesn’t? That’s not an indication of how they view you, or an attack on your tastes. Like what you like. And if you’re that passionate? Awesome. Start a YouTube. Buy a domain. And maybe you can find your people on the internet. Pretty cool, right?
I believe in you, dear reader.
I don’t blame the people who put together websites, accounts and posts like these to chase likes, clicks, ad revenue and more, it’s what we’ve been incentivized to be “successful” on the web.
But we can change the tide. Don’t like. Don’t link. Don’t repost. Don’t share. The less we deliver the results, the less people do it.
And if you do want to do those things?
For the love of God, please, do the legwork.