2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOne Way to Mislead and Distort: Six in Ten People Read Only Headlines
Last edited Wed Sep 9, 2015, 12:10 PM - Edit history (2)
http://macombpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/03/six-in-10-read-only-headlines.htmlWow. So you could post a joke headline about Bernie or his supporters and more than half would only read the headline. They would never get the joke and would have a negative impression of Bernie or his supporters.
Politics: The land of smoke and mirrors.
Update: I'm continually amazed by how some Bernie "Supporters" continue to post headlines that if the headline was the only thing that was read would leave a very false and negative impression of Bernie. And I notice how those posts are always swamped with recommendations. If I didn't know better, I'd really begin to wonder if some of those posters actually supported Bernie Sanders....
Notice I didn't say all because people can do things without thinking about the unintended consequences (which was the reason why I posted the above in the first place).
Here's another good article:
http://newyorker.tumblr.com/post/105455030756/how-headlines-change-the-way-we-think
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(56,874 posts)tymorial
(3,433 posts)So many suppose the truth because they read a headline. They completely disregard the fact that click bait is a very real thing and the mainstream media use eye catching headlines to manipulate people into clicking. 6 corporations own more than 90% of the news media. They engage in direct competition through sensationalism which drives page counts and paper purchases. Each page hit increases advertising revenue. Each newspaper purchased allows the newspaper to charge more. The more influence a website has, the more they engage in this behavior. Look at Yahoo, the links to AP and Reuter stories are often completely misleading. The fact that so many only read headlines is why this country is so uniformed on current events and why so many base their entire world view on feelings alone.
This also explains the gross animosity of people towards each other. When opinions are based only on emotion, questioning validity becomes a matter of pride. Instead of introspection, people lash out and attack. This is why there is no debate, only insult and gross generalizations of "the other side." Sadly, this behavior is not specific to any location on the political spectrum.
brooklynite
(93,834 posts)I keep hearing that people will go to YouTube of their own accord and watch his speeches.
Was I misinformed?
msongs
(67,193 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)It must take a special kind of person to do that type of work.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)I like to look at it to see what crazy stuff is being said, but the links often say one thing
while the linked article says the opposite.
My made up example:
"OBAMA'S THE ANTI-CHRIST"
But when you go to the link,
the story will say something like:
"While many think Obama is the Anti-Christ, he has yet to admit it"
But for right wing loonies, they just read where The Drudge Report says blah, blah, blah.
So, it must be true.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)--but, people are quick to judge given the device they read on.
The large City Newspapers like NYT & WaPo tend to put the real information/details in the last few paragraphs of the article even in their online versions. But, most people today are too busy to go past the eye-grabbing headline to see if the article is really reporting what it promised.
Scrolling through on a cell phone or I-Pad is different from quiet time reading a newspaper that would lie around the house that one could pick up and read in depth.
So...things are a bit different from "old media" comparing to reading online these days.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)Skittles
(152,963 posts)inevitable