Is the SI slow drip backfiring?

:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:

quote:

---

Yahoo's reporting on the other hand in designed for today's reader. "Here it all is with proof. Come at me bro!" Much more effective.

---

I agree. SI is acting like they have the discovery of the century and that we're all waiting with bated breath for the next release.

I don't know if the reaction is a commentary on the audience's attention span. Scandals can persist past the point of new information, and we still love it. This story is just a lot less interesting than they anticipated.

The entire SI mess is falling apart or more accurately, being quickly dismantled by people a little closer to being real journalist. If they have any shame or pride whatsoever they would cancel the last 2 installments, retract the story and discipline the authors. I won't hold my breath.

quote:

---

Is the SI slow drip backfiring?

---

What's backfiring on them is not the method they are using to release the "report", it's the fact that the whole "report" is complete bullshite.

THey are literally giving people time to debunk every aspect as it comes along.

Probably didn't help that Yahoo released a more appealing report, with actual evidence, against the team that won the Natty 3 of the last 4 years.

It isn't backfiring. The very fact that you are asking the question indicates that you are following the story. If they had put it all out at once we would be largely finished talking about it. But since they are releasing it bit by bit, we have new stuff to talk about every day for the last week. When was the last time you recall anyone talking this much about an article in Sports Illustrated? I can't recall people ever talking about an SI article this much. SI's goal is to sell magazines and generate traffic to their website. And it is working. They could give a shite less if the article is shitty journalism.