I... don't believe this? Maybe parts of it are based in truth, but the explanation for not doing it as a video feels weak to me. I feel like most people would want him to show a video, not disrupt it himself? It feels like a fantasy.
There's almost nothing online about him other than his interviews, and all of a sudden this week numerous articles about him separately popping up? Something feels a bit off.
It's almost like it's becoming true because it's been printed? He can now go make a show or sell the service to people or whatever, and when people say "is this true?" he can point to all the articles about it as proof. It doesn't matter if it's true anymore, because now there's enough sources that it's fact.
I believe there’s a business registered... in fact, that’s the point, right? This is an ad.
The name was changed only a few months ago. Before that, the company name was Freedom from Debt Collectors.
Like I said, I’m sure there’s a bit of truth in this. And I’m 100% sure he’ll take someone’s money to show up at a funeral. I just feel like somethings off in general.
Its because its likely a reprint of a pre-packaged ad/media release that's doing the rounds dressed up as news/an article.
From one of the original articles from the gold-coast:
"The extraordinary story of a Gold Coast private detective paid to gatecrash funerals and tell uncomfortable truths is to be made into an ‘emotional and confronting’ TV series."
They even managed to get the story run by our national broadcaster, which is SUPPOSED to be ad/marketing free, but these days shrug, just dress it up as an article and its on for young and old...
Yeah, people should be aware that Newsweek magazine has itself died and been brought back. It’s just a name at this point, I don’t think it retained any editors or writers from its earlier incarnations.
> Newsweek has the name and the professional website it has built in years past, but it’s increasingly repurposing the work of others—whether the Washington Post, the outrage fiends at Fox News, or a dozen people on Twitter—and packaging it as its own. Plenty of news sites aggregate, and in many ways the story of Newsweek is the story of the industry. But whereas other aggregators—Mashable, BuzzFeed, Upworthy; the list goes on—built their sites around this kind of internet-first strategy, Newsweek is selling off its own legacy while hoping that readers won’t notice.
Yeah, by the time I got to the third story I was waiting to read 'and then everybody clapped.' historically people use their executor to do this sort of stuff.
Someone writes these things for a target audience, which believes this. His atrocious compensation, all these well-crafted, small, interesting (though: somewhat predictable) turns. The style is called "Belletristic", I'd say. I am not sure what the goal is: To sell the story, itself (add supported to millions, e.g.) or to find very few customers, which actually spend, what is described in the story as a reasonable compensation for "crushing" a funeral and saying a few words and... god forbid... not doing something wrong, even if requested, such as murdering dogs, because we all know... wish: We get the very good money for (just) doing good (and sticking to our principles and virtues, even against our customer/boss)... truth be told: Life can be different and much harder.
There's almost nothing online about him other than his interviews, and all of a sudden this week numerous articles about him separately popping up? Something feels a bit off.
It's almost like it's becoming true because it's been printed? He can now go make a show or sell the service to people or whatever, and when people say "is this true?" he can point to all the articles about it as proof. It doesn't matter if it's true anymore, because now there's enough sources that it's fact.