Gwenpie

Daniel doesnt want to make a point, he wants to be right

And like. We get some hints hes done important political pieces, he has stuff to say, but from all we see hes really good at provoking people to get the truth without necesarrily having a stronger reason behind it, which is probably why be gets so much controversy

Like.......you can do that! Theres an entire branch of journalism around getting the truth and forcing out answers by being abbrasive and rude. Often built around getting a few punchy books or documentaries out rather than a consistent stream of in the moment reporting

but also Daniel doesnt seem to have a point to it and thats kinda his flaw. We know hes got politics and drives, first episode he insinuates his editor thinks hes the type to call Bezos the most dangerous man in the world hes probably got some political leanings in his works. He was writing stories about gay people in the 70s, even if it was for drugs, which would be an extremely hard hitting political piece at the time

But like....ultimately he seems to go into interviews just wanting to say the truth. He doesnt play up a character or have a clear point behind it. He critizes his younger self not tearing apart Louis' story, but his younger self ironically does a decent initial interview for being high where he gets the facts as Louis says them where he could fact check later and then do a follow up. Its the 70s, Louis wasnt someone in the public eye, and it was unprompted, he couldnt do research in the moment and contradictions can be checked later. Daniel got shaped by the fact he never got to do that practice, and decided every interview he did had to be like he was getting his one shot at Louis again. Irl a journalists like him would probably get all the criticism he gets in universe because yeah, hes calling the subject out mid interview, hes insulting them, cracking jokes about their experiences and traumas. Stuff that would make normal people shut down or start changing themselves mid interview, especially when its someone whose not in the general public eye

Which....if youve ever seen some documentaries about disturbing or fucked up topics is the normal way to do it even if the persons in the more public eye or obviously bullshitting, ESPECIALLY if youre a journalist in a foreign country talking to these people in private. Calling them out usually a result of turning their words around on them or just prodding the emotions they say rather than dropping a few insults or telling them their problem immediately

All of which is an overly long way to say "of course Daniel gave Armand a good spot light in his book despite how he treated him. Daniels entire journalistic approach is based on the idea he kight never see this person again, and Armand spent half their interview time lying to him and the other half lying to Louis."

That said, sometimes your body and brain do genuinely just need a pick me up.

The more frequently you practice intuitive eating like this, the better you'll get at figuring out what it is that your body is asking for.

Also, a great trick is to take a look at what you're craving, note the nutritional contents (fat, carbs, protein, plant matter/fiber) and try and figure out what else sounds tasty for your particular craving. This can give you more data points to go off of. For instance, if you're craving ice cream, but a sweet roll sounds just as good, it's probably carbs your body is asking you for. That said, if you're craving ice cream and a sweet roll doesn't sound good at all BUT a bagel with strawberry cream cheese or avocado toast DOES sound good, you know it's fat you're needing.

>open book