- They misspell Rob’s last name. It’s Rhinehart, not Rheinhart.
- The entire tone of the article is negative. “Rheinhart rattled off the benefits”; “that Rhinehart concocted in his kitchen”
- 4/5 of the ‘feedback’ points were negative, but the best was “My mouth tastes hot and like old cheese.” Tastes like hot? What?
- The author of the article compares it to semen in appearance, which is very unfair and damning.
- “But what makes Soylent unique, is that it is the first of these “functional beverage” developed for and by young, male tech geeks.” This is what makes Soylent unique? Are you kidding me?
- “A number of nutritionists have come out agains [sic] the idea that anyone can live on goop alone.” No link to any of these opinions.
- “It’s the same stuff being forced down the throats of the Guantanamo Bay hunger-strikers.” Oh, great. First semen, now guantanamo. So it’s semen that you give to war prisoners.
- “The tragic fate of someone with a rare chronic disease caused by radiation expsourein the post-apocalypse.” Sigh.
- “Then I took another big gulp of the stuff and my feeble, lasagna-fired mind faltered and I thought of bodily fluids and began to gag, so I dumped the whole thing in the sink.”
I have seen over the course of my time reading extensive amount of internet journalism, products either take off or die because of the early publications and early attention that they’re given. This article on the whole is ignorant, ‘reactionary’ to use Rob’s words, unfair, and gives the entire idea and vision of the product a passing glance, meant to put a bad taste in your mouth (which I think we all know in the literal sense of Soylent can be remedied however you want).
Now, don’t confuse my meaning - journalism in itself is not something one can easily complain about with the hopes of changing anything, the less so with internet journalism. I’m just rather frustrated with the fact that almost all of Rob’s misconceptions that he talks about are at play here.