Yes. It did. You're not mistaken. Because of everything I just wrote in my last post, specifically:phamnotof wrote:1) Whoops? I've offended you enough that you need to 'whoops' me? You'd think I'd have targeted you personally rather than made a very generic comment that was obviously using hyperbole. But yes. I did sense some indignation in people's reaction to her bringing up their sexualities that extends outside of mere criticism of her journalistic skills. Specifically your “I don't understand the world sometimes“ read as somewhat upset with her bringing it up, but I can of course just be mistaken there.
It's more than one word, it's quite literally the first line of the article and serves as the readers starting point with learning about Dan and Phil. Indeterminate sexuality reads as not-straight. Yes, it is my opinion (where did I try to play it off as fact, please) that making a point of mentioning their probable-not-straightness goes against the intent of the article. Actually, scratch that, it just literally adds nothing. She has nothing to say about masculinity with regards to sexuality, there's no intent to engage in that discussion. Sexuality has no part in this article. So I find it quite unnecessary to bring it up as the first thing in describing D&P, especially when they've made it clear they don't want that to be relevant to what they do.2) Speaking of journalism, stating opinions as facts is rather a no-go. The off-handed sexuality comment (it's quite literally one word) serving no purpose in this article is an opinion. I, for one, don't share it. I think it's answering a question a reader might have while reading this specific article about D&P, which makes it worth putting in. That's what you're trained to do as a journalist, trained to serve the reader who's going in with little to no information.
Being un-stereotypical men, expressing themselves and their emotions creatively-- that's a point of the article (where they come into it anyway). 'Let me add my suspicions of their sexualities to start off here for no reason (IMO in case that's somehow not clear)' to me is no better than a tabloid article questioning celebrities' sexualities. What if the Teen Awards included that in their nomination materials? Vlogger Duo of Indeterminate Sexualities Dan and Phil. I mean, it's just info that's out there, why not use it.
Because; IMO it's just on the edge of outing, to which I say: no thank you please.
Well that's all lovely but nothing she bothered to touch on in the article. It would have been a great read if she went that deep, but she didn't. You're doing it for her for free.5) Pioneering expressions of gender and masculinity that exist outside the status quo is a part of the male queer culture. D&P aren't pioneers, but assuming they're not straight, they're a part of that, and that's not stereotyping, that's context. Which, yes, does matter. As does the context of the writer being in her 40s at least and offering a not entirely regular, outside of the phandom POV on D&P, which is bound to shape how she talks about them.
Anyway I apologise for not sharing your opinion, thank you for schooling me on the intricacies of journalism, and sorry I whoops'ed you.
And disclaimer: I'm not even shitting on the article, the article is fine and the intent is great. That one line alone is my problem because it's not [IMO] used to any productive effect [/IMO].
edit: This has nothing to do with anything, but that Sunday Times author was a man. I don't know why I feel the need to make that correction, but hey.
It's a pretty good read though, if anyone's interested and hasn't read it. Oh, and I wasn't hanging around here when Dan first tweeted it so I don't know how much coverage the article received on this forum last time. Sorry if I'm just rehashing a topic!)
~when ur sad, remember the deppy japan trip of 2015~ 
(I could see Dan writing a book or something down the line where he talks about how difficult and wonderful everything was)
