Clickbait Taking Over "Journalism"

[Foolmewunz]

I think there was a REAL FAKE NEWS thread somewhere but damned if I can find it.

I've noticed a trend in CNN's headlines for over a year. They'll intentionally leave off a key word and post a clickable lead/headline that reads, say, "President Hiding Serious Illness" and you click it. How many of us would've clicked "President of Slobovistan Admits Suffering from Alopecia"?

Leaving key elements out of a lead is an old favorite device. "Devastating Crash Kills Seven - tape at 11" is sort of common. When it turns out that the "seven" is a family of ducks, we all kick ourselves for falling for it, yet again.

Today, though, I ran across something where not just the headline but the entire thrust of the article is dishonest.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/24/europe/german-court-hangover-disease-wellness-trnd/index.html

The clickbait read: A German Court Ruled That Hangovers Are An Illness

The headline read(still reads as of this writing): Rejoice, booze lovers. A German court ruled that hangovers are an illness

The actual story is not slightly but quite different. In an effort to stop a not-really-medicine-but-it-works campaign to sell a hangover "cure", they ruled that a hangover is a form of illness and making spurious claims about medical efficacy is illegal.

The headlines are spinning it into a formal go ahead to claim your hangover as a "sick day" or "excused absence". The court made no such declaration and an incidental line in a single case in a German trial is far from "scientific proof".

Tempest in a teapot, I know, but it just irked the crap out of me and I felt like venting and you, poor baby, are the one who got to listen to my rantings.

 

[dann]

Tempest in a teapot, I know, but it just irked the crap out of me and I felt like venting and you, poor baby, are the one who got to listen to my rantings.

Me too! I hate headlines like, 'Tap water polluted in major Danish town,' especially when it would have been much shorter if they'd just written the name of the bloody town. Or 'World-famous guitarist dies.' Clapton would have been shorter and to the point, but they are usually about guys I never even heard of. (And before I start any rumors, I think he's still alive.)
But the clickbait industry seems to be evolving. Apparently, people have stopped falling for, 'You'll never believe who ...' headlines.

 

[Brainster]

Don't kid yourself, the news business has always been business first and journalism second. "Remember the Maine!" headlines made Hearst a wealthy man.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Don't kid yourself, the news business has always been business first and journalism second. "Remember the Maine!" headlines made Hearst a wealthy man.

Not the same thing, but yeah, "Baby Dead!" sold a lot of papers. That's just manipulation and we've actually got it pretty good in the USA and Canada, when you see the slanted (ideologically) journalism of many countries. US papers at least used to try to keep their opinions to the opinions pages. CNN was supposed to be the soft media version of that standard. When they realized a few years ago that keeping up a full slate of actual newswriters and reporters was going to put them into bankruptcy court they turned to wire services more and more, but they also reverted to worse models for presentation. The whole bottom half of the home page is now recycled articles from weeks and even months ago and paid content, barely discernible from their own links to CNN content.

That just seemed to be a price being paid and I adjusted. I realized that I really don't give a crap about who is or isn't buying or selling what on "Mansion Global" so Kylie Jenner is a thing of the past.

But clickbait in their own reporting is just a hustle. I kinda expected more of them. I learned to not click the "President's Resignation Demanded" to have to find out what's going on in whatever country that's referring to. But the hangover story pissed me off more because the entire story is based on stupid throwaway comments by a talking head. I assume the video is some sub-network they're a part of? It shows up semi-often.

 

[Minoosh]

CNN content.

But clickbait in their own reporting is just a hustle. I kinda expected more of them. I learned to not click the "President's Resignation Demanded" to have to find out what's going on in whatever country that's referring to. But the hangover story pissed me off more because the entire story is based on stupid throwaway comments by a talking head. I assume the video is some sub-network they're a part of? It shows up semi-often.

I consider myself extremely fortunate in having had for 30 years a chance to ethically inform my community and even a few times affect the national conversation. But the rules changed drastically with the rise of the Internet and I see why. It became a kind of arms war, seeing who could write the most titillating headlines in order to keep people on the site and thus keep ad revenues up.

There's a way to do that without cheating readers. And gradually we catch on and become more skeptical. We're still in the infancy of online news gathering and presentations.

I eschew most "sponsored content" and dip into a few sites with different points of view. The BBC, Al Jazeera, the AP, Reuters ... not perfect sites but at least something to balance out the frivolity of so much U.S. news. With the wanna-be school shooter I chose Fox for breaking news to see how it would be presented and how 2A activists would respond. I mine WaPo, the NYT and CNN for facts, but guardedly. The WSJ when I can get past the paywall. CNN analysts have been predicting the imminent demise of Trump for 3+ years now and they've been wrong every time. I don't like to hear only what I like to hear.

Also spend a fair amount of time on The Economist and The New Yorker. I might then triangulate that with conservative media - the National Review is sometimes a source. But no apologies for staying away from the snarkier sites whether left or right.

 

[wollery]

I think there was a REAL FAKE NEWS thread somewhere but damned if I can find it.

There was no REAL FAKE NEWS thread, someone made that up.

 

[Belz...]

Taking? No. Taken.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I have the solution to all your news problems! It's One Weird Trick They Don't Want You To Know!! Click HERE!!!

 

[Belz...]

Journalists HATE him.

 

[dann]

I have the solution to all your news problems! It's One Weird Trick They Don't Want You To Know!! Click HERE!!!

FTFY.
By the way, nobody has mentioned the trick where you divide an ordinary-length article into several very short ones so you have to click ten times to read it all, thus exposing yourself to ten times more advertising! NEXT.

 

[Darat]

I'm always amused with those that they to insert where they think you are into the "articles" (used to be known as adverts):

1000s of people in Riverdale are buying this funeral plan.

Especially when I am using a VPN and it comes back with

1000s of people in !****?? are buying this funeral plan.

 

[Darat]

FTFY.
By the way, nobody has mentioned the trick where you divide an ordinary-length article into several very short ones so you have to click ten times to read it all, thus exposing yourself to ten times more advertising! NEXT.

That's because no one

 

[Darat]

FTFY.
By the way, nobody has mentioned the trick where you divide an ordinary-length article into several very short ones so you have to click ten times to read it all, thus exposing yourself to ten times more advertising! NEXT.

would be that daft

 

[Darat]

FTFY.
By the way, nobody has mentioned the trick where you divide an ordinary-length article into several very short ones so you have to click ten times to read it all, thus exposing yourself to ten times more advertising! NEXT.

Or evil.

 

[Bikewer]

I love the click-bait things that pop up on various sites..

“Top Gut Doctor Urges You To Quit These Three Foods!”

“Gut doctor”?

“Doc, how do you make your diagnosis?”
“Oh, I just go with my gut.....”

 

[Mike!]

FTFY.
By the way, nobody has mentioned the trick where you divide an ordinary-length article into several very short ones so you have to click ten times to read it all, thus exposing yourself to ten times more advertising! NEXT.

I hate those most of all. It seems each page loads a little slower, and the ads keep moving so when you think you've clicked "NEXT" you've actually clicked a generic Viagra link, because 95% of those ads are always for some kind of dick troubles, but you don't know you've clicked the wrong button until the dick trouble ad has popped up completely. Man, I hate those.

 

[alfaniner]

Every so often I see a link for some new product that sounds interesting. Clicking reveals a video that has a different advertisement as its opening. I click it off as soon as I recognize that, and never get to see the intended video. I don't even want to give them five seconds of my time because I lose my train of thought. But I suppose they got their "hit" anyway.

 

[Distracted1]

I hate those most of all. It seems each page loads a little slower, and the ads keep moving so when you think you've clicked "NEXT" you've actually clicked a generic Viagra link, because 95% of those ads are always for some kind of dick troubles, but you don't know you've clicked the wrong button until the dick trouble ad has popped up completely. Man, I hate those.

I believe those ads can be targeted based upon your search history.

 

[dann]

They often can, but most people probably hate dick trouble ads almost as much as dick trouble!

 

[rockysmith76]

I think there was a REAL FAKE NEWS thread somewhere but damned if I can find it.

I've noticed a trend in CNN's headlines for over a year. They'll intentionally leave off a key word and post a clickable lead/headline that reads, say, "President Hiding Serious Illness" and you click it. How many of us would've clicked "President of Slobovistan Admits Suffering from Alopecia"?

Leaving key elements out of a lead is an old favorite device. "Devastating Crash Kills Seven - tape at 11" is sort of common. When it turns out that the "seven" is a family of ducks, we all kick ourselves for falling for it, yet again.

Today, though, I ran across something where not just the headline but the entire thrust of the article is dishonest.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/24/europe/german-court-hangover-disease-wellness-trnd/index.html

The clickbait read: A German Court Ruled That Hangovers Are An Illness

The headline read(still reads as of this writing): Rejoice, booze lovers. A German court ruled that hangovers are an illness

The actual story is not slightly but quite different. In an effort to stop a not-really-medicine-but-it-works campaign to sell a hangover "cure", they ruled that a hangover is a form of illness and making spurious claims about medical efficacy is illegal.

The headlines are spinning it into a formal go ahead to claim your hangover as a "sick day" or "excused absence". The court made no such declaration and an incidental line in a single case in a German trial is far from "scientific proof".

Tempest in a teapot, I know, but it just irked the crap out of me and I felt like venting and you, poor baby, are the one who got to listen to my rantings.

yesterday a walrus attack and sunk a russian navy boat, post-clickbait.... an inflatable zodiac style raft, left that part out.

This ran with a few different major sources, CNN, FOX, etc