DEFIANT's Demise: The Root Cause
Apr 2, 2005 13:43:36 GMT -5
Post by Defiant1 on Apr 2, 2005 13:43:36 GMT -5
While sifting through items I pulled out of storage, I found CBG# 1012. This is a key issue. It features some of the first articles about DEFIANT comics. It features some of their first ads. Last but not least, it features a DEFIANT comics cover.
I consider the bias of this publication and it's self-serving contributors (and supporters) to be a key reason DEFIANT comics amassed so much negative publicity.
I submit a quote from an editor on page 27 of the publication. The quote lies beneath the article titled "Jim Shooter: Story of a Defiant dreamer". The quote reads:
Editor's Note: The following biography was supplied by Defiant. All claims and value judgments are Jim Shooter's and are presented from his point of view. Some of these claims may be disputed by others.
I not only submit this quote, but I consider it to be irresponsible journalism. The editorial credits appear to be those of Don and Maggie Thompson. I see no other names credited. When I eventually dig up the press release this article quotes, I'm going to pay very close attention to the title of that release. I want to see if the press release used a title that could be construed as condescending, because the title of the article can be construed as condescending.
I don't recall the press release ever asserting that the content in the article was the "claims and value judgments" of Jim Shooter. If the article does not state that, then again I see this as an irresponsible bias. It is presumptuous for the article to state that if the source for the presss release was a marketing company.
I specifically love the utterly useless comment "Some of these claims may be disputed by others." Yes, that is true, and it also true that others may dispute the integrity and character of the editor and contributors to the publication.
This was clearly a spiteful and unneccessary addition to their article.
In my opinion, the CBG is/was and continuously proves to be a clique of self-serving pseudo-journalists and creators who do nothing but self-promote their own work for the sake of getting visibility in the market.
That list includes just about everyone who is a regular contributor.
I believe that this unnecessary editorial comment incited scrutiny and hair splitting that would not have occurred had the insulting disclaimer not been added.
I believe the further acts by the editors to fan the flames of malignment by dragging their bias into the 'Oh, So!" letters column over the following weeks (or longer) is inexcusable. It was yet again a self-serving attempt to get increased sales at the expense of another creator's quite notable accomplishments.
In reciprocation for their bias, I have with great dedication offered my contempt for their publication (as well as a handful of names associated with this publication). I smiled when I saw a format change awhile back. I will be glad in the day they receive the fruit of the disscord they have sown. I will be glad when they no longer spread their influence over the comics industry.
Defiant1
I consider the bias of this publication and it's self-serving contributors (and supporters) to be a key reason DEFIANT comics amassed so much negative publicity.
I submit a quote from an editor on page 27 of the publication. The quote lies beneath the article titled "Jim Shooter: Story of a Defiant dreamer". The quote reads:
Editor's Note: The following biography was supplied by Defiant. All claims and value judgments are Jim Shooter's and are presented from his point of view. Some of these claims may be disputed by others.
I not only submit this quote, but I consider it to be irresponsible journalism. The editorial credits appear to be those of Don and Maggie Thompson. I see no other names credited. When I eventually dig up the press release this article quotes, I'm going to pay very close attention to the title of that release. I want to see if the press release used a title that could be construed as condescending, because the title of the article can be construed as condescending.
I don't recall the press release ever asserting that the content in the article was the "claims and value judgments" of Jim Shooter. If the article does not state that, then again I see this as an irresponsible bias. It is presumptuous for the article to state that if the source for the presss release was a marketing company.
I specifically love the utterly useless comment "Some of these claims may be disputed by others." Yes, that is true, and it also true that others may dispute the integrity and character of the editor and contributors to the publication.
This was clearly a spiteful and unneccessary addition to their article.
In my opinion, the CBG is/was and continuously proves to be a clique of self-serving pseudo-journalists and creators who do nothing but self-promote their own work for the sake of getting visibility in the market.
That list includes just about everyone who is a regular contributor.
I believe that this unnecessary editorial comment incited scrutiny and hair splitting that would not have occurred had the insulting disclaimer not been added.
I believe the further acts by the editors to fan the flames of malignment by dragging their bias into the 'Oh, So!" letters column over the following weeks (or longer) is inexcusable. It was yet again a self-serving attempt to get increased sales at the expense of another creator's quite notable accomplishments.
In reciprocation for their bias, I have with great dedication offered my contempt for their publication (as well as a handful of names associated with this publication). I smiled when I saw a format change awhile back. I will be glad in the day they receive the fruit of the disscord they have sown. I will be glad when they no longer spread their influence over the comics industry.
Defiant1
