You see to have misinterpretted the opinion. They’re stating that the newspaper focuses on those things so much so that one would assume that’s the only thimg that matters. Much the same as today’s news media with their 24/7 focus on doom and gloom for the views and clicks.
That is, or course, if you’re like the others who seem to interpret the opinion as a commentary on how the world truly was.
If over the course of 100 years, nothing more newsworthy has prevailed to get people’s attention, that the doom and gloom of a century ago is the same as it is today, it’s saying something about the world in general that we haven’t changed. Should we have changed in 100 years? I’d like to think so, but as I get older I know that’s a pretty optimistic view of things.
That author’s paragraph out of context could mean a lot of different things which we can leave up to each viewer to decide.
You see to have misinterpretted the opinion. They’re stating that the newspaper focuses on those things so much so that one would assume that’s the only thimg that matters. Much the same as today’s news media with their 24/7 focus on doom and gloom for the views and clicks.
That is, or course, if you’re like the others who seem to interpret the opinion as a commentary on how the world truly was.
If over the course of 100 years, nothing more newsworthy has prevailed to get people’s attention, that the doom and gloom of a century ago is the same as it is today, it’s saying something about the world in general that we haven’t changed. Should we have changed in 100 years? I’d like to think so, but as I get older I know that’s a pretty optimistic view of things.
That author’s paragraph out of context could mean a lot of different things which we can leave up to each viewer to decide.
It’s blatantly obvious by just reading that it was a condemnation of the paper covering nothing but the worst.