Alright, lemme try to explain this:
- You stated you don't care about FFmpeg.
- Someone asked why and stated it was useful.
- You brought up "bad journalism" in response, implying your lack of care for FFmpeg was due to the article not describing why it was useful.
- To refute your accusation of bad journalism, I pointed out the first paragraph of the article, which directly makes a case for FFmpeg and which you seemed to have missed.
- You somehow seem to think I'm defending FFmpeg in some fashion, thus missing my point. (Also, you seem to be calling FFmpeg a "format," presumably because it has "mpeg" in the name? FFmpeg handles a litany of formats.)
The author has not done bad journalism. You just missed stuff while reading. That's fine so long as you address it. I would ask you not insult me for pointing this out, though.