http://www.contentcustoms.com/blog/misleading-headlines-can-influence-readers-actual-content


from the article:

The main problem here is that publishers are posting articles with lofty headlines that generate clicks but end up actually leaving readers with skewed versions of the truth. This happens even if the whole article is read. Thus, the study suggests that content creators are doing a serious disservice to the their readers by using headlines such as these. The question is this: if publishers and article writers know that readers retain information from the headline more than anything else in the article, don't they have a responsibility to avoid headlines that bend the truth? Can readers be blamed for not examining content more closely and getting to the true crux of a story?



---------------------------------------------------

my family called this 'lazy thinking', just allowing others to interpret a picture without actually looking it over yourself,,,


seems to happen a lot, and I understand how easy it is to fall into,, its everywhere,, takes real determination to try to read through the bias for the balance,,,

The headline that sticks most in my mind, ironic at election time,
but when the Donald was divorcing the first wife (and she sought
more than the prenup allowed) the headline read:

IVANA Better Deal


Still makes me laugh :-)

Have power because thanks to the internet and smart phones and video games people have attention spans less than a goldfish.

One study of online habits noted the majority of people don't even read the full article. They click for the pictures/video to tell them the story.
At most they read a paragraph or two before clicking onto something else.


Click bait.
News and media publishers are owned by companies.
Companies want revenue.
They get their revenue from advertisers.
Advertisers want access to as many people as possible.
"Journalists" get to keep their job and get paid depending on how many people read their article.

Nothing bad can come from that model.

But what's the alternative?
Government subsidy?
No conflict of interest there.

Maybe a law that says "it's illegal to sell news, or accept money from any source for access to it, only freely disseminate it by your own methods and abilities, on penalty of death," or something.


No.
It's still the responsibility of the reader to think about what they're reading.


Yes.
But blame doesn't come in a single use bucket.
You can lay blame all over the place.
Just because you can blame readers, it doesn't mean you can't blame the publishers or writers.

"How much" blame only really matters when you're looking to assign consequences.


News isn't about balance, it's about disseminating information.
There is always a bias.
You create your own balance. Even then, it's biased.
It's just the bias you are comfortable with.

That is why it is up to each one reading such articles to look at how much research went in to the sources of the information and make a common sense decision of it's truthfulness. I tend to be very skeptical of any such information as truth until I look at where the information presented comes from and then decide for myself if it is valid or not. Often times the source of articles are not easily found due to the sources being deleted or shredded or just their trail has been covered up. I have found over the years that when this happens there is usually a nefarious reason for it. JMHO

Another excellent choice for a thread subject. Kudos.

My own primary educational discipline (History) is VERY concerned with this kind of thing, and I accordingly try to work to avoid being suckered.

But it does take a LOT of real work for each of us, just to remember to watch out for this.

I want to point out that even usually reliable sources can fail, and publish misleading headlines. Sometimes simply because they are trying to shorten the title to fit the page, and lose a critical adverb or other word, which is critical to getting things right.

I agree with the person who said it is very much our responsibility as readers, and I would say, as American citizens, to do the work needed to get our understanding of the world right. It's a responsibility that comes as a balancing aspect, with the privilege of being allowed to vote entirely as we see fit. Another way to put it is, if you want other people to take responsibility for informing you, you are handing them the ability to make your decisions for you as well.

I don't much trust the media.

they play that card both ways



“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years......It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supernational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.”
― David Rockefeller

It's often easy to see the bias in a headline or an article

Not so easy to see the bias in the reader

Getting to know our own bias's and how they are not always as logical as we think they would be is our best defence against deception whether by self or others

so are they reading the article it self or just title? lord~~~~~~the end is near~~~~~~~~~~~~show me some light~~~~~~~~ then i get that now.....they're not the bravo~~~~~ just remmerber the clip inspector~~~~~~~they should call em self beta......... chiban chiban~~~~sim sim la~~~```