Typical pattern: “Scientists find something strange when they look at a common whatever - and it’s not good!”
This kind of crap used to be the style of little blurbs at the side or the bottom of an article, but it’s in the headlines now. Until you click the headline you don’t even really know what the article is about anymore - just the general topic area, with maybe a fear trigger.
Clicking on the headline is going to display ads, but at that point the goal isn’t to get you to buy anything yet, it’s just to generate ad impressions, which the content provider gets paid for regardless of whether you even see the ads. It’s a weird meta-revenue created by the delivery mechanism, and it has altered the substance of headlines, and our expectations of what “headline” even means.
I despise it. It’s everywhere.
It’s even like that in our public service media in my country, which is tax-funded and does not need to generate clicks at all. There are no ads embedded in their articles or anything. They have no reason at all to bait.
Yet they do. It’s like it’s getting taught at journalism school or wherever the fuck they go before starting their career in baiting.
Master baiters are what they are. Absolute masters.
Yes, but this has been the case for many years now.
Whenever people ask this question, I do this one thing.
I dont click on them. Unfortunately rss is going in the same direction
Everybody has always been annoyed by them. Since before computers existed; newspaper headlines were the original clickbait and it’s always sucked.
MAN THREATENS TO NOT READ NEWS ANYMORE over clickbaity headlines
I hate them. I hate that everything is always trying to sell you something or trick you into generating profit somehow. It makes me want to burn down a bank.
There’s something I hate more than clickbaity headlines, click here to find out!!
I’m not annoyed by them (I simply don’t read them, why would I want to waste my time?), I’m saddened by them.
Edit: that’s also the reason why I read so few newspapers/periodicals. And why I pay for them. I want to support quality work.
Yeah I made c/savedyouaclick in the hope of getting people de-clickbaiting stories, but I was the only poster afaict. I wonder if calling it newssummararies could help.
Nah that community name is fine, it just needs to be promoted. Someone else linked some communities where it can be advertised.
Oh I’d be up to help if I could
Maybe a link or two a day
I’ll also contribute a wank or two a day.
Thank you for your service
For what, cutting down?
It could be worth posting about it in [email protected] and [email protected]
How do you “do” c/savedyouaclick? I’ve summarized links in a comment before, but I don’t know what would be the point of also mentioning c/savedyouaclick when I do that.
See the existing posts there, I guess, or look at the reddit version. I agree that there’s not much point in cross linking it unless there’s a significant discussion thread for that post. But reddit got those sometimes.
No other choice than sticking with the few reputable media that still don’t do that. Gotta support them so they don’t fall into that too.
Sometimes the articles themselves are fine, and it’s just the editorial department that adds the sensational headlines. I don’t know if it’s worth throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If the marketing has the power to go over the journalism to change the titles, isn’t it a symptom that things are going downward for this media?
Haven’t the titles always been traditionally written by someone other that the articles author?
As long as journalism quality is respected that’s not an issue.
NPR and the BBC still aren’t doing that.
- I think the Associated Press is in the clear here.
- Seems Reuters so far is good too.
- And The Guardian
- Mother Jones
- ProPublica
- Ars Technica for tech news
- The Conversation (always written by subject-matter experts)
- Deutsche Welle
- Etc.
Thankfully there are still a lot of amazing news sources that have held onto their integrity. Click here to see even more. Number 17 will surprise you!
That’s a very good list. I just threw out the first couple that came to mind, but it is worth calling out the organizations that are still trying to do real journalism.
I give small sustaining donations to NPR, ProPublica, and The Guardian. I hope to add a few more when I can.
It’s not new, it’s just adapted to the media format.
Getting people to read the news and the ads between articles is how the game is designed.
Journalism classes has always educated this.
If you had been an adult during a decade or two before the Internet you would know that a headline used to sum up the basics of a story. For example, picking a random 1980s headline: “Six US embassy aides escape from Iran”. Nowadays that would be more like, “US admits Iran plot.”
I took some journalism classes in the 90’s (and then decided it wasn’t for me), and my SO was a journalist around the same time.
Congrats, I’ve been reading news headlines since I was a kid in the 60s.
Lemmy user SLAMS mainstream media, you will not believe what the comment section said
slam
Da dah dah
and welcome to the JAM!
OP is on BLAST after reading this one comment.
SHOCK reaction as bait comment fallout nixes OP campaign success chances, experts warn.
deleted by creator
