Unfiltered tirades against particular titles, as well as hyperbolic reviews which claim that a series is a perfect masterpiece, can be enjoyable to consume to a degree. Yet written content on anime, as well as other forms of media, of such a nature is inherently alienating and frustrating to many.
Even if one attempts to present an impartial appraisal supported by logical arguments, the fact remains that one is putting forth a subjective opinion by default. For one person may be drawn to the very narrative qualities which repulse another. Because everyone is entitled to holding different opinions and can draw divergent conclusions from the same scenes and episodes, editorials and articles should be encouraged to take a more nuanced approach when it comes to coverage.
The aforementioned rants and overly positive takes fail in this regard since they fully embrace impartiality and thus can come across as insensitive. In an attempt to clearly convey strong emotions and sentiments, the articles essentially dismiss other perspectives in order to persuade the reader.
Admittedly, one of the primary objective of written articles or editorials or essays is to convince the reader that the author’s point-of-view holds merit or is even correct. That’s why examples are appreciated in such content as they are a means for
a) the author to demonstrate what the series is trying to convey in terms of thematics and such, and
b) the readers to follow along and see if they agree with the author.
Another means through which the author can attempt to persuade the reader to believe in the validity of the author’s position is to discuss counterpoints. The way the author approaches this method can be incredibly variable. The author can attempt to tear down these opposing stances in order to make the championed perspective upon which the article is based seem more appealing. The author can also elaborate on these differing positions and ultimately leave it to the reader discretion and attempt to appear neutral (at the risk of creating a false dichotomy, however, since few matters in life are truly black-and-white).
A common approach is to just mention opposing viewpoints before proceeding to the “main” stance. Ultimately it tends to do little to placate readers who disagree with the position of the editorial (and the author), however, as a brief sentence or two is likely not enough.
But what and when is enough?
Does an article have to be exhaustively inclusive and address all positions? At what point does an editorial seemingly shift from being an opinion piece and become more like an article which squarely falls under “he said, she said” journalism?
There’s the matter of flow and clutter to be considered, as well. Including all sides to an debate may be more “fair,” but it will certainly cause written content to appear unfocused or overly lengthy. Furthermore, dissenters can always write their own articles to cover positions which they feel were neglected, so there should be theoretically less pressure when it comes to being all-encompassing. In theory, at least, but readers who feel like their perspectives were marginalized are prone to lashing out.
It’s difficult when it comes to deciding where the line begins or ends regarding being comprehensive. But do bear in mind that no content creator should be attacked for holding different opinions or for omitting perspectives. Maybe mistakes were made or were not made. Be that as it may, the author and editor is in the end people just like you and me. So treat them as such.