
Longreads is increasing reporting - bootload
http://www.niemanlab.org/2017/05/amid-the-wreckage-of-fallen-startups-longreads-is-increasing-the-original-reporting-it-funds
======
scrooched_moose
I like the idea of so-called "long reads" but generally hate the execution.
There's a standard longform template I can't stand:

1) Personal anecdote from the author

2) Description of what the weather is like outside the diner where they're
meeting for an interview

3) What the two people ordered for dinner, with a long description of how they
stir their coffee

4) Excerpts from the middle of the interview which are meaningless out of
context

5) Another anecdote

6) Jump-cut to something tangentially related on the other side of the country

7) Back to the original interview

8) THE LEAD, conveniently buried 2 pages in, where I finally learn what the
stupid thing is about

9) Not sure what comes next, because after wasting 10 minutes of my time I've
lost interest.

So many of them are a standard 800 word article padded out to 5000 with no
extra substance.

~~~
k-mcgrady
If your aim is 'the lead' why would you want a long form article? Personally,
the elements you feel aren't substantive I like. They set the scene. If your
goal is information that is obviously not very useful but if your goal is an
enjoyable read that's entertaining and informative those elements are
important.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
Not the GP but I recognize the format he's posted. I have problems with
articles that follow that sort of format because usually the author is taking
an interesting story and bulking it up by talking about themselves instead of
the subject. I want to get lost in the subject and my feelings about it. I
can't really get lost in the author narrating their own feelings about the
subject, it pulls me out of the story.

~~~
erikpukinskis
Yeah, they're imitating Hunter S. Thompson without really getting what he was
doing.

The point of "Gonzo Journalism", as I understand it, was that the narrative
around certain subjects (politics, drugs, America, etc) had become so
toxically self-referential that there was simply no way to approach them
objectively. Even if you could apply some strict journalistic standard, the
reader would read it through such a noxious filter of propaganda that nothing
would get through.

The only sane response in that case, from his perspective, was to simply throw
one's entire self into the fray, indulging your neuroses, compulsions, and
desires in and amongst the people you were reporting on, then to pour your
whole self onto the page and simply allow the reader and you, through the
sacred bond of reading and writing, to commune in some kind of spirit plane
above the propaganda and doublespeak.

This leads to an (at the time) shocking blend of personal experiences and "on-
topic" reporting. Of course decades later this kind of intermingling has
become common and no longer shocks people.

I think the essayists you are complaining about are adopting the "Gonzo" form,
blending the personal with the topical, but without actually throwing their
full selves into the world they are reporting. Thus the personal bits don't
really bear any connection to the topical, and don't aid the reader in seeing
_through_ the subjectivity to the subject, the way Fear and Loathing did.

------
tuna-piano
For those who like long form reading, this site is great:
[https://longform.org/](https://longform.org/)

I usually send the articles to my Kindle (with a Chrome extension). It makes
for comfortable reading.

~~~
weston
Same here, I love Longform! I save them to my Instapaper and read them when I
have downtime or am stuck somewhere (like a waiting room).

