Creepy old man wrote:
I love the way Beck writes. This paragraph is wonderful:
"Whereas all corners of journalism once rejected the ignorant, the half-literate, the lazy, and the spineless, today’s hand-job-happy environment is tailor-made for a freewheeling moron like Chris Chavez, who can compensate for a lack of basic knowledge, thinking power, integrity, running ability, and literacy with sheer ass-kissing, not just to the scumlords like Phil Knight he pleasures via his interviews but the blinkered masses who make up most of his thousands-strong fan base."
That paragraph is objectively terrible.
Beck writes like an edgy 19-year-old wannabe movie critic, not an objective journalist. Calling Chavez a 'freewheeling moron" who lacks "basic knowledge, thinking power, integrity, running ability, and literacy." Anyone who listens to him must be a part of the "blinkered mass." Phil Knight (who he's read some articles on) is a "scumlord." And then he goes and sh•ts on Chavez for not being a talented runner?
This is some wannabe-hipster d-bag nonsense. I'd expect this out of a sophomore lit major, not a full-functioning adult like Beck. You don't like someone's argument, then you break it down by pointing out fallacies and inconsistencies, not by calling them names or making fun of their lack of athletic talent.