|
Post by michaelw on Mar 2, 2017 8:53:39 GMT -5
I would be more upset at a false headline that constituted libel against a person. I don't think you get to say what I'm okay with. Now, if Melania had offered sex to ONE Iowan in exchange for his support, and the headline read "Iowan s" ... I'd be less disturbed, though it would still not be "fact" and it might still be libelous, idk. This exchange reminded me of this: www.maxim.com/women/madonna-makes-sexy-offer-clinton-2016-10Carry on, though.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 2, 2017 8:58:36 GMT -5
I would be more upset at a false headline that constituted libel against a person. I don't think you get to say what I'm okay with. Now, if Melania had offered sex to ONE Iowan in exchange for his support, and the headline read "Iowan s" ... I'd be less disturbed, though it would still not be "fact" and it might still be libelous, idk. Again, where's the line? Death by a thousand cuts...
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 2, 2017 8:59:45 GMT -5
I would be more upset at a false headline that constituted libel against a person. I don't think you get to say what I'm okay with. Now, if Melania had offered sex to ONE Iowan in exchange for his support, and the headline read "Iowan s" ... I'd be less disturbed, though it would still not be "fact" and it might still be libelous, idk. This exchange reminded me of this: www.maxim.com/women/madonna-makes-sexy-offer-clinton-2016-10Carry on, though. She just exudes class, doesn't she?
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 2, 2017 9:04:27 GMT -5
I would be more upset at a false headline that constituted libel against a person. I don't think you get to say what I'm okay with. Now, if Melania had offered sex to ONE Iowan in exchange for his support, and the headline read "Iowan s" ... I'd be less disturbed, though it would still not be "fact" and it might still be libelous, idk. Again, where's the line? Death by a thousand cuts... Legally, the line is libel. Morally/ethically, NO LIES EVAR.* * Btw, you look fat in that dress, rob. Very, very fat.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Mar 2, 2017 9:12:05 GMT -5
My expectations for the Fourth Estate are a bit higher than "as long as it's not libel."* I know, I'm a dreamer...
* I am talking actual news pieces here, not op-eds and fluff.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 2, 2017 9:16:29 GMT -5
I don't disagree, actually.
You may recall a while back I lamented about the trouble with getting any news without partisan slants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 9:36:26 GMT -5
I'm with Rob that both are real problems -- it is a matter of degree. I like accuracy.
Especially now, the media should aim to be as accurate as possible. Why hand Trump an excuse to point a finger and claim fake news?
I think most who like Clinton would be pissed at a headline that said "Iowa town's Clinton voters are now delighted Clinton lost" -- and it turned out to be one person.
And yeah, people need to read entire articles, not just a headline. But again, knowing they do this, give them an accurate headline. It's not so hard.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Mar 2, 2017 9:48:03 GMT -5
So... it's misleading for... people who gather their "facts" from headlines. What is the real problem there? The headlines, or the subset of people who believe they contain the entirety of the information available? With whom lies the responsibility for people who only read headlines? Can't both be "real problems"? People should read articles, not just assume the titles are true statements. Media outlets shouldn't use false or misleading headlines/titles. People don't read articles if the headline doesn't get their attention. In this particular case, it succeeded. Maybe some actually read the freakin' article too. A headline is not fraud, like that commercial picturing that Big Mac isn't fraud. Everyone knows Big Macs don't look like that. I mean, sure, it would be great if there was no such thing as exaggeration or sensationalism. But the best way to get rid of those things is for people to get wiser. And again, this is a not new phenomenon. You say "just a headline," but again, where's the line? How about if the piece used the headline "Melania offers sex to Iowans in exchange for their support"? That would be just a headline, too. Imo, if you're okay with obvious misrepresentation (which I think is a polite way to say "lying") in headlines, then you're okay with flagrant, borderline libelous lies in headlines. It's really not much of a slope. If Melania Trump was offering blowjobs for votes, your hypothetical headline would be okay. If she's not then it wouldn't be. The WaPo article is factually true if not totally and 100 percent accurate. It is possible to have one without the other. Unless one's expectations are for a perfection in others they have not achieved in themselves. This is just media bashing cloaked as so much pearl-clutching and fainting couches over a headline. BFD.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2018 8:22:50 GMT -5
New year, shockingly similar story to the one that was the basis of this thread (with the same flaws): In Iowa, doubt creeps in even among Trump supportersRead the story. There is exactly one Trump supporter in the piece that headline might be referencing, but even that's a stretch (as her doubt seems limited to Trump's position on NAFTA alone, an opinion that he made crystal clear during the campaign).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 19, 2018 12:37:56 GMT -5
New year, shockingly similar story to the one that was the basis of this thread (with the same flaws): In Iowa, doubt creeps in even among Trump supportersRead the story. There is exactly one Trump supporter in the piece that headline might be referencing, but even that's a stretch (as her doubt seems limited to Trump's position on NAFTA alone, an opinion that he made crystal clear during the campaign). Here's another story and maybe you should read it since you clearly do not understand how "journalism" works. If I were Brad Wilcox, I'd pick up the WaPo looking for my piece, see the title and the byline and say, "WTF?" But that's how journalism works. It's the same way how most film directors don't shoot the trailers for the films they make and end up pissed when it reveals details they didn't want shared. Now if you want to grouse the CNN article isn't entirely accurate, you've got a valid point there, but editors don't want 500 word headlines that are accurate. They want short, punchy, provocative headlines which catches eyeballs and gets the reader to read it NOW because when they say, "I'll read it later" news editors know "later" never comes. CNN put up a story, gave it a title that garnered clicks, you read it, brought it here, and I found it that way and read it too. That's a successful headline and CNN thanks you for your support.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 19, 2018 15:04:29 GMT -5
*shrug*
I think I do understand how "journalism" works. I'd just prefer to see less of it and more actual journalism.
True, I clicked through the CNN title, but then I click through a lot of titles on CNN (and BBC, and RCP). Ones where the titles are flagrant misrepresentations--like with this one--just aren't the norm, in my experience. I'd guess such things are more common at less mainstream news outlets, however.
Regardless, this story got me because I remember the previous one at WaPo and I thought it funny that CNN ran essentially the same story that WaPo ran, just almost a year later. And laughably, it's flawed in exactly the same sort of way as the previous one.
Tangentially, I also wonder about choices here, with regard to reporting. Is "send a reporter out to a small town in Iowa for reactions to national politics, then draw general conclusions from the same" SOP now? And as I write the above, it occurs to me that this also dovetails into Opty's anecdotal evidence thread. Because conclusions are being drawn--or at least people are being set up to draw them--because of anecdotal evidence by supposedly intelligent observers...
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 20, 2018 1:39:39 GMT -5
*shrug* I think I do understand how "journalism" works. I'd just prefer to see less of it and more actual journalism. No, you clearly don't understand how journalism works. You have an opinion of what constitutes "actual journalism" but as you didn't know reporters and writers rarely write their own headlines you demonstrate a lack of knowledge about a long-established tenet of real journalism, not just the journalism that lines up with that opinion. Just as I'm not a medical physician or a lawyer or a garage mechanic, I'm free to offer an opinion on how well they're doing their job, but it isn't the same thing as an informed opinion by a peer who knows how the sausage gets sliced over a best guess from a layman with a vague notion, but no certainty on how journalism actually works. Additionally, you've demonstrated a marked proclivity to bang on CNN for their lapses or misleading headlines slagging Trump far more frequently while giving a pass to Fox and any similar conservative news outlet for their misleading headlines cheering Trump, and to believe you know anything of what constitutes "actual journalism" you'd have to park your demonstrable political biases. If Trump were to walk across the frozen Potomac ( to get to the other side, losers. To bang a porn star on the other side. What else?) between Fox News breathlessly reporting, "Trumps Walks on Water Proving He Truly Is the Son of God" and CNN sneeringly dismissing it " We Now Have Proof: Trump Can't Swim!" only one would take fire from you and it would be the latter, not the former. "Actual journalism" is not limited only to the journalism you consider to be okay. It includes the stuff you claim is not. As you've offered no proof, a guess is all it is. Which part? The parts where only a few respondents actually are critical of Trump or the parts where any respondent is? Iowa, like New Hampshire, is one of the Whitest states in the United States and therefore among the least diverse and least reflective of how the American diaspora actually plays out. Because of their prominence in presidential politics is far greater than than their significance, what comes out of Iowa matters far more than what the general sentiment with Trump Year One is. Trooping off to the snows of January Iowa is supposed to be taking the temperature in the nation's Midwest. All it is is a snapshot of a time and a place. I don't put a lot of stock in what a few reporters overheard in an Iowa restaurant, but I put even less in a thread about anecdotal evidence I'd never bother wasting my time reading.
|
|