It's a matter of personal taste. The only cautionary advice to writers who employ this style would be to tell them that not all exaggerations are equal.
Sitting behind the desk when the email came in is a harmless exaggeration. It doesn't matter if he was really in bed or at dinner. The dramatic embellishment does little or nothing to change the facts or perceptions in a meaningful way.
If it's ok, we can point to NYT's article on Trump and his aides from some time ago. Aides stumbling in the darkness unable to find light switches type line. Something like that is damaging and deserves proof before writing. Doesn't matter which way you lean, that's dangerous waters since that's been written with an intent to alter perceptions in a meaningful way. To cast a group of people as confused and befuddled.
If this article (the TC cloudflare one) was to write about the patent trolls in a dramatic style that vilified them, that too would be wrong. Something like
"In the photo, Freeman can be seen standing on a bridge with a wry smile as if imagining the future in which the lawyers control the game."
Would be very dangerous and should not be encouraged.
Thankfully this article seems to follow a simple expositional style (somewhat third person narrative of cloudflare's perspective) with a little droplet of drama that just enhances the story rather than manipulating perceptions or reality.
Sitting behind the desk when the email came in is a harmless exaggeration. It doesn't matter if he was really in bed or at dinner. The dramatic embellishment does little or nothing to change the facts or perceptions in a meaningful way.
If it's ok, we can point to NYT's article on Trump and his aides from some time ago. Aides stumbling in the darkness unable to find light switches type line. Something like that is damaging and deserves proof before writing. Doesn't matter which way you lean, that's dangerous waters since that's been written with an intent to alter perceptions in a meaningful way. To cast a group of people as confused and befuddled.
If this article (the TC cloudflare one) was to write about the patent trolls in a dramatic style that vilified them, that too would be wrong. Something like
"In the photo, Freeman can be seen standing on a bridge with a wry smile as if imagining the future in which the lawyers control the game."
Would be very dangerous and should not be encouraged.
Thankfully this article seems to follow a simple expositional style (somewhat third person narrative of cloudflare's perspective) with a little droplet of drama that just enhances the story rather than manipulating perceptions or reality.