What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Words Matter - How We Talk About Things - Headlines (1 Viewer)

Joe Bryant

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
A conservative friend of mine sent me this article today by his former law professor.

Gaining Power Hasn't Made The Left Any Less Insane

Of course the picture attached to the headline has a raised fist with giant fire in the background.

I didn't even read the article. But had this thought.

Words Matter. Headlines especially. 

“The Left” is not “insane”. “The Right” is not insane.

But that headline and picture has one purpose: To sell ads and get clicks. 

There might well be good stuff in the article. But I’d love to send a massive message to media that says “If you try to manipulate us with this, we’re saying No”. 

Look. I get it. I'm an optimist but I know for a fact that will never happen. There's simply too much money in it for them. 

But what can happen is our friends see us doing that. And our kids see that. And we start changing and influencing some people around us. We change the way we do it around here. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
A conservative friend of mine sent me this article today by his former law professor.

Gaining Power Hasn't Made The Left Any Less Insane

Of course the picture attached to the headline has a raised fist with giant fire in the background.

I didn't even read the article. But had this thought.

Words Matter. Headlines especially. 

“The Left” is not “insane”. “The Right” is not insane.

But that headline and picture has one purpose: To sell ads and get clicks. 

There might well be good stuff in the article. But I’d love to send a massive message to media that says “If you try to manipulate us with this, we’re saying No”. 

Look. I get it. I'm an optimist but I know for a fact that will never happen. There's simply too much money in it for them. 

But what can happen is our friends see us doing that. And our kids see that. And we start changing and influencing some people around us. We change the way we do it around here. 
Click to expand...
This is exactly what needs to happen.  The quicker people realize the "media" in this country is revenue motivated and not some noble beacon of information the better.  My pessimism doesn't lie in these companies.  It lies in the people who support them with their viewership and clicks.  Look no further than some in this very forum who continually obsess with our media coverage but are constantly on those sites (supporting them with their eyes and clicks).  It's baffling to me.  I really don't understand why anyone turns on any of those news sources ever.  It should be blatantly obvious that twitter and facebook aren't news sources either....they are attention grabbers.  I don't have any clue how we break this cycle.  Once we do (if we do) A LOT of people are going to have their worldview absolutely crushed by reality.

 
I agree with you Joe, but honestly have 0 optimism that it changes.  Their $ is basically tied to keeping eyes on their sites, and how that happens is click bait articles and division leading us down rabbit holes.  

It's not just headlines like this, our language is changing- hell, just look around these boards for examples on how we think and talk in extremes.  Examples of x being like Nazis, big corporate overlords, x being racist, on and on.  

 
The Commish said:
This is exactly what needs to happen.  The quicker people realize the "media" in this country is revenue motivated and not some noble beacon of information the better.  My pessimism doesn't lie in these companies.  It lies in the people who support them with their viewership and clicks.  Look no further than some in this very forum who continually obsess with our media coverage but are constantly on those sites (supporting them with their eyes and clicks).  It's baffling to me.  I really don't understand why anyone turns on any of those news sources ever.  It should be blatantly obvious that twitter and facebook aren't news sources either....they are attention grabbers.  I don't have any clue how we break this cycle.  Once we do (if we do) A LOT of people are going to have their worldview absolutely crushed by reality.
Click to expand...
This x 100.   Include youtube in the bolded too.  Great post.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
I agree with you Joe, but honestly have 0 optimism that it changes.  Their $ is basically tied to keeping eyes on their sites, and how that happens is click bait articles and division leading us down rabbit holes.  

It's not just headlines like this, our language is changing- hell, just look around these boards for examples on how we think and talk in extremes.  Examples of x being like Nazis, big corporate overlords, x being racist, on and on.  
Click to expand...
I do think we can have an impact though. 

That message from my friend this morning included a couple of other friends of mine. I think they thought it was going to be a pile on thing with the "YEAH! See how insane the left is!" I stopped that in its tracks saying it was clickbait with a headline like that. I told them what I wrote here. We can be better. 

Does that scale? No. But it makes a difference I think. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
I do think we can have an impact though. 

That message from my friend this morning included a couple of other friends of mine. I think they thought it was going to be a pile on thing with the "YEAH! See how insane the left is!" I stopped that in its tracks saying it was clickbait with a headline like that. I told them what I wrote here. We can be better. 

Does that scale? No. But it makes a difference I think. 
Click to expand...
Curious what the reaction was from your friends when you said that Joe.

 
The Commish said:
Curious what the reaction was from your friends when you said that Joe.
Click to expand...
That's pretty important too. These are 20+ year friends who love me. 

They pushed back a little (it was a little rude of me to shut it down like that) but the conversation stopped after a couple more messages.

And that's fine. It didn't really need to continue. I think they know I'm right. Or at least they understood where I'm coming from. And it works just as well for both sides. I can easily say my side does the same thing. 

And maybe that's part of it too. Neither of our sides in that friend group are so insecure we can't admit when "our side" does something wrong. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
That's pretty important too. These are 20+ year friends who love me. 

They pushed back a little (it was a little rude of me to shut it down like that) but the conversation stopped after a couple more messages.

And that's fine. It didn't really need to continue. They know I'm right. And it works just as well for both sides. I can easily say my side does the same thing. 

And maybe that's part of it too. Neither of our sides in that friend group are so insecure we can't admit when "our side" does something wrong. 
Click to expand...
I  ask because I had a similar interaction with people (not my best friends but friends nonetheless) over what facebook was/is.  I got bombarded with these kinds of articles and one day I just asked what they were hoping to accomplish.  After a lengthy back and forth I simply ended by saying that they'd never get articles like that from me because they serve no purpose and I hoped that they'd return the favor.  Most of them were on board, some weren't.  Those that weren't aren't on my feeds anymore.  People not willing to do for others what they expect from others have no use to me.  Meet me in the middle and we can hash out our differences all day long until we get them resolved.  If you're not up for that, I don't have time for you.  It sucks to lose some of them, but the toxicity is diminished...lost several liberal and conservative people in the process, but they all got to see how I choose to handle people...hopefully they respect it.  If not, there's not much I can do about it.

 
Actually, it's telling that I had to look at the URL to see that this is an article published in the NY Post.  That's probably not the best example since this is a self-styled tabloid, but honestly you could have seen the exact same piece on the front page of CNN and it wouldn't have been out of place.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This used to be just a social media thing, but the mainstream media has gone pretty much all-in on clickbait.  CNN.com in particular is nearly intolerable and has been for 4+ years.  Unfortunately, my guess is that "nuance and good taste in journalism" is a lost cause at this point.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I mean I get it. I"m in that business too of trying to attract fantasy football attention on the internet.

It's easy to see what they're doing. And it's obvious why. It engages people. My friend saw that article. Not only did he read it, he SHARED it. That's the home run. 

That doesn't happen with an optimistic or positive article about the new policies President Biden hopes to implement this year. That's meh. This has sizzle. Literally with the picture.

But in my opinion, the headlines like that are just garbage. 

 
Joe Bryant said:
A conservative friend of mine sent me this article today by his former law professor.

Gaining Power Hasn't Made The Left Any Less Insane

Of course the picture attached to the headline has a raised fist with giant fire in the background.

I didn't even read the article. But had this thought.

Words Matter. Headlines especially. 

“The Left” is not “insane”. “The Right” is not insane.

But that headline and picture has one purpose: To sell ads and get clicks. 

There might well be good stuff in the article. But I’d love to send a massive message to media that says “If you try to manipulate us with this, we’re saying No”. 

Look. I get it. I'm an optimist but I know for a fact that will never happen. There's simply too much money in it for them. 

But what can happen is our friends see us doing that. And our kids see that. And we start changing and influencing some people around us. We change the way we do it around here. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment Joe but sadly for many the bolded is only the case when it’s calling out that persons views. As we’ve seen many times as long as the target is the “other side” there are a lot of people that are fine with it in that scenario. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Actually, it's telling that I had to look at the URL to see that this is an article published in the NY Post.  That's probably not the best example since this is a self-styled tabloid, but honestly you could have seen the exact same piece on the front page of CNN and it wouldn't have been out of place.
Click to expand...
I just went to CNN.com for what may be the first time in my life and the closest thing I saw to a click-baity headline was about the weather: "Nearly 2 years' worth of rainfall is possible in parts of Southern California over the next week."

In any case, I'll make a few jumbled comments:

1. The NY Post is a tabloid and isn't representative of the media more generally.

2. In the NY Post's defense, that article was pretty clearly opinion, not news. The standard for decent headlines is lower with opinion pieces. (The standard for factual accuracy is also lower, unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is.)

3. That said, I do think there may be a disturbing trend even among competent news organizations in favor of slightly click-baity headlines. That's probably a consequence of a business model that relies on advertising.

4. In light of number three, I would like to see more news organizations move to a subscription model rather than an advertising model. Some rely exclusively on advertising. Others are a mix. Some might rely exclusively on subscriptions, though I'm not aware of any.

5. Despite number four, I'm not sure whether foregoing advertising is realistic for many news organizations. Opinion writers can ditch traditional publishers, build their own individual brands, and rely on subscriptions through substack or similar platforms. Would that work for news? While the major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, WaPo) can get by on subscription revenue, I'm not sure smaller organizations can. That includes local news outlets, which are shriveling. I don't know a good solution for that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of this could be taken down a notch if people had bigger vocabularies.

Swap out crazy/insane for duplicitous in that article and a lot people would nod their heads or at least grudgingly admit there's a point to be considered. But who wants to click on an article about duplicity?

Like @IvanKaramazov said, the news doesn't exist to deliver the news to the people - it exists to deliver profit to the stakeholders. And just like social media wants to capture your clicks, so does "traditional" media. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I just went to CNN.com for what may be the first time in my life and the closest thing I saw to a click-baity headline was about the weather: "Nearly 2 years' worth of rainfall is possible in parts of Southern California over the next week."

In any case, I'll make a few jumbled comments:

1. The NY Post is a tabloid and isn't representative of the media more generally.

2. In the NY Post's defense, that article was pretty clearly opinion, not news. The standard for decent headlines is lower with opinion pieces. (The standard for factual accuracy is also lower, unfortunately. It shouldn't be, but it is.)

3. That said, I do think there may be a disturbing trend even among competent news organizations in favor of slightly click-baity headlines. That's probably a consequence of a business model that relies on advertising.

4. In light of number three, I would like to see more news organizations move to a subscription model rather than an advertising model. Some rely exclusively on advertising. Others are a mix. Some might rely exclusively on subscriptions, though I'm not aware of any.

5. Despite number 4, I'm not sure whether foregoing advertising is realistic for many news organizations. Opinion writers can ditch traditional publishers, build their own individual brands, and rely on subscriptions through substack or similar platforms. Would that work for news? While the major newspapers (NYT, WSJ, WaPo) can get by on subscription revenue, I'm not sure smaller organizations can. That includes local news outlets, which are shriveling. I don't know a good solution for that.
Click to expand...


In this case, the author is Glenn Reynolds who is pretty well know as the founder of Instapundit (in addition to being a professor at U of Tennessee Law School).  It seems he publishes in the NY Post pretty regularly, which seems odd.  The question I had is whether the author has control of the headline.  I didn't read the article, but I understand in some cases authors submit their content but the publisher controls the headline, as they have a strong interest in generating exposure.  For some of these more tabloidy sources, it is common for the headline to be somewhat at odds with the content.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I just went to CNN.com for what may be the first time in my life and the closest thing I saw to a click-baity headline was about the weather: "Nearly 2 years' worth of rainfall is possible in parts of Southern California over the next week.
Click to expand...
Are you sure you were on the right page? Did you spell the URL correctly?

Jokes aside, the threshold for what one considers click bait is obviously variable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
I do think we can have an impact though. 

That message from my friend this morning included a couple of other friends of mine. I think they thought it was going to be a pile on thing with the "YEAH! See how insane the left is!" I stopped that in its tracks saying it was clickbait with a headline like that. I told them what I wrote here. We can be better. 

Does that scale? No. But it makes a difference I think. 
Click to expand...
Of course, and I agree.   Each of us have the power and choice not to click on that stuff.    That is why I bring up over and over how we get our news and info.   However, there's soooo many people on those platforms, hence me not having much confidence large scale changes will happen.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Of course, and I agree.   Each of us have the power and choice not to click on that stuff.    That is why I bring up over and over how we get our news and info.   However, there's soooo many people on those platforms, hence me not having much confidence large scale changes will happen.  
Click to expand...
Don't lose faith GB. It has to start somewhere. Why not us? 

 
Andy Dufresne said:
A lot of this could be taken down a notch if people had bigger vocabularies.

Swap out crazy/insane for duplicitous in that article and a lot people would nod their heads or at least grudgingly admit there's a point to be considered. But who wants to click on an article about duplicity?

Like @IvanKaramazov said, the news doesn't exist to deliver the news to the people - it exists to deliver profit to the stakeholders. And just like social media wants to capture your clicks, so does "traditional" media. 
Click to expand...
I'd settle for accurate vocabularies at this point.  "Just the facts ma'am" kinds of places exist outside our national media.  I recommend people looking for those while turning their backs on the nonsense we have today.  They will continue with this approach until it's no longer profitable.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Actually, it's telling that I had to look at the URL to see that this is an article published in the NY Post.  That's probably not the best example since this is a self-styled tabloid, but honestly you could have seen the exact same piece on the front page of CNN and it wouldn't have been out of place.
Click to expand...
I agree 100% but you forgot Fox News. 

I like to go to Google News so I can get a quick cross section of headlines on any particular story.  Every time I think "HFS!!" to a headline, it's CNN or Fox News.  I blocked NY Post.  I keep the other 2 around just in case it might be important.  If I think there might be something to it,  I click the "full coverage" icon and 90% of the time there isn't a single other publication reporting "the story".  I refuse to click on any CNN or Fox News link because of the nonsense they engage in.

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
The first thing that needs to happen is for people to be able to distinguish op-eds from news articles.
Click to expand...
I think that's 1b to the 1a of journalists simply delivering the news instead of editorializing everything.

But to your point, my dad was an elementary school teacher. He's long said the problem with education is that we teach people WHAT to think but not HOW. That's reflected in our media consumption.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
In this case, the author is Glenn Reynolds who is pretty well know as the founder of Instapundit (in addition to being a professor at U of Tennessee Law School).  It seems he publishes in the NY Post pretty regularly, which seems odd.  The question I had is whether the author has control of the headline.  I didn't read the article, but I understand in some cases authors submit their content but the publisher controls the headline, as they have a strong interest in generating exposure.  For some of these more tabloidy sources, it is common for the headline to be somewhat at odds with the content.
Click to expand...
he quit his writing in USA Today because they wouldn't publish his one article about Hunter Biden.  

He's actually pretty smart and interesting.  Doesn't mean he's right or wrong, but i like his writing style.  

 
Not that I don't disagree - but gotcha misleading headlines have been around since the start of newspapers :shrug:

 
belljr said:
Not that I don't disagree - but gotcha misleading headlines have been around since the start of newspapers :shrug:
Click to expand...
I think it's much worse now with the way the internet works and sending out "hooks" to pull people to the story.

And for sure, Op/Ed is different than a news story. But even that is blurred now as it used to be easy to distinguish in the paper as it was its own section. 

But even for Op/Ed, I think what I said applies. Clearly, the original article I linked to was an Op/Ed. I think everyone gets that. But for that, I think we push back on a headline that's pure garbage like "The Left is Insane".

 
CletiusMaximus said:
In this case, the author is Glenn Reynolds who is pretty well know as the founder of Instapundit (in addition to being a professor at U of Tennessee Law School).  It seems he publishes in the NY Post pretty regularly, which seems odd.  The question I had is whether the author has control of the headline.  I didn't read the article, but I understand in some cases authors submit their content but the publisher controls the headline, as they have a strong interest in generating exposure.  For some of these more tabloidy sources, it is common for the headline to be somewhat at odds with the content.
Click to expand...
I don't know in this case @CletiusMaximus but I'd be pretty surprised if he had total control on the headline. 

 
Good topic. What are the two main assumptions that are constantly made? 

1. That most liberals are actually radical socialists/anarchists, or at least sympathetic to radical socialists/ anarchists. 

2. That most conservatives are actually racists/white supremacists, or at least sympathetic to racists/white supremacists. 

It seems to me that one key to healing is getting away from these two assumptions. 
 

 
Joe Bryant said:
Don't lose faith GB. It has to start somewhere. Why not us? 
Click to expand...
I gotcha, and I do just that - I took FB off my phone (just have messenger for work), and have 0 social media presence besides this place.  I have 3-4 news apps on my phone I look at, but besides that I just get info from books and maybe listening to podcasts/interviews.  

I get that I am being a Debbie Downer, but I honestly believe we have gone way too far past the point of no return.  I don't expect a mass of people to get off social media or to at least stop using that for their news and political info.   Just look and listen to all the talk.  A social media outlet can't police the info because that's "censorship".   Hell, even around here we can barely talk about places to get good info - then you are a board cop or just accused of attacking the source and not the content.    I have 0 clue how to correct this problem.   There are decent options out there, but collectively we just decide to complain about MSM while still watching it and clicking on it.  :shrug:   

 
belljr said:
Not that I don't disagree - but gotcha misleading headlines have been around since the start of newspapers :shrug:
Click to expand...
I get what you are saying, but the internet amplified and accelerated everything.   The 1000s that got the newspaper that might have done that is nothing compared to the millions that will see a headline or a retweet today.  

 
belljr said:
Not that I don't disagree - but gotcha misleading headlines have been around since the start of newspapers :shrug:
Click to expand...
You're right in premise but they were technically thought of as "rags" much the same way the National Enquirer and NY Post are/were viewed.  Newspapers held themselves to higher journalistic standards.  CNN, Fox News and the hundreds of blogs and left/right wing web "publications" are the rags of old.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Good topic. What are the two main assumptions that are constantly made? 

1. That most liberals are actually radical socialists/anarchists, or at least sympathetic to radical socialists/ anarchists. 

2. That most conservatives are actually racists/white supremacists, or at least sympathetic to racists/white supremacists. 

It seems to me that one key to healing is getting away from these two assumptions. 
 
Click to expand...
I’d add a couple more:

3. If you vote for a Republican or Democrat you automatically support or endorse everything from that party.

4. Voting for a Democrat makes you a liberal, voting for a Republican makes you a conservative 

 
So if we are all agreeing that the media has an agenda (either side) and click bait exists....then why are constantly fighting with each other and using these blatant opinion pieces as weapons??...And dont get me started on Memes!!! We say its click bait, but we buy into it hook line and sinker when it aligns with whatever point we may be trying to make, valid or not. Along with that, is the people who quote these talking heads as if their 30 seconds of airtime is gospel. There is very little of daily "news shows" that are actually news anymore. Anytime you have people sitting around a table "reporting" the only thing they are reporting is their (or the station's) opinion. 

@Joe Bryant words indeed matter and whenever I have this conversation with anyone, I always point them to allsides.com where they take daily topics and list the headlines from 3 sources in various Left, Right and center leaning papers. On some topics it is amazing to see how the headline alone can be so critically polarizing and obviously written to provoke a response.  

 

 
glvsav37 said:
So if we are all agreeing that the media has an agenda (either side) and click bait exists....then why are constantly fighting with each other and using these blatant opinion pieces as weapons??...And dont get me started on Memes!!! We say its click bait, but we buy into it hook line and sinker when it aligns with whatever point we may be trying to make, valid or not. Along with that, is the people who quote these talking heads as if their 30 seconds of airtime is gospel. There is very little of daily "news shows" that are actually news anymore. Anytime you have people sitting around a table "reporting" the only thing they are reporting is their (or the station's) opinion. 

@Joe Bryant words indeed matter and whenever I have this conversation with anyone, I always point them to allsides.com where they take daily topics and list the headlines from 3 sources in various Left, Right and center leaning papers. On some topics it is amazing to see how the headline alone can be so critically polarizing and obviously written to provoke a response.  

 
Click to expand...
You hit sime good points here, and what i think it comes down to is how people most people are wired.  People do not like their belief system challenged.  It is so much more comforting and easier to consume news which aligns with one's own belief system.  There are so many people in this country who can't even stand to be around people who are on the side side.   I tend to challenge people's beliefs and people take it personally.  The vast majority of people seek confirmation over truth.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37 said:
So if we are all agreeing that the media has an agenda (either side) and click bait exists....then why are constantly fighting with each other and using these blatant opinion pieces as weapons??...And dont get me started on Memes!!! We say its click bait, but we buy into it hook line and sinker when it aligns with whatever point we may be trying to make, valid or not. Along with that, is the people who quote these talking heads as if their 30 seconds of airtime is gospel. There is very little of daily "news shows" that are actually news anymore. Anytime you have people sitting around a table "reporting" the only thing they are reporting is their (or the station's) opinion. 

@Joe Bryant words indeed matter and whenever I have this conversation with anyone, I always point them to allsides.com where they take daily topics and list the headlines from 3 sources in various Left, Right and center leaning papers. On some topics it is amazing to see how the headline alone can be so critically polarizing and obviously written to provoke a response.  

 
Click to expand...
Thanks @glvsav37

For the "why are constantly fighting with each other and using these blatant opinion pieces as weapons?" I think the answer is some people have a bias toward division and fighting. 

I think there's a bigger thing going too where the manipulators are able to successfully transfer stories to self identity. Someone opposed to _______ idea, doesn't just have a different opinion, they are evil. Or someone in favor of __________ doesn't just have a different opinion, they are heroic. 

So when the discussion changes from "What is the best way to handle this?" to a radically different feeling "are you for good or are you for evil?", which really means, "Are YOU good or are YOU evil?" then that's when it's on.

And the companies who profit from the clicks and the politicians who profit from division get exactly what they want. 

 
Also, thanks for the Allsides.com link. I've not seen that. Can you elaborate more on it? Bias pointing out is always tricky for some. Does it seem to be pretty accepted?

 
AAABatteries said:
I’d add a couple more:

3. If you vote for a Republican or Democrat you automatically support or endorse everything from that party.

4. Voting for a Democrat makes you a liberal, voting for a Republican makes you a conservative 
Click to expand...
I'm actually curious to see all these posters that have claimed for 4 years to be slightly conservative start defending conservative policies in the discussions (well whatever few discussions actually can occur on this forum) since they can no longer hide behind "I just don't support Trump".   He's gone.

 
Joe Bryant said:
A conservative friend of mine sent me this article today by his former law professor.

Gaining Power Hasn't Made The Left Any Less Insane

Of course the picture attached to the headline has a raised fist with giant fire in the background.

I didn't even read the article. But had this thought.

Words Matter. Headlines especially. 

“The Left” is not “insane”. “The Right” is not insane.

But that headline and picture has one purpose: To sell ads and get clicks. 

There might well be good stuff in the article. But I’d love to send a massive message to media that says “If you try to manipulate us with this, we’re saying No”. 

Look. I get it. I'm an optimist but I know for a fact that will never happen. There's simply too much money in it for them. 

But what can happen is our friends see us doing that. And our kids see that. And we start changing and influencing some people around us. We change the way we do it around here. 
Click to expand...
I agree with your message and articles like this only help foster division in our country.  That's why I'm curious why you allow certain threads whose only intent is to demonize the other side to flourish here.  

 
Captain Cranks said:
I agree with your message and articles like this only help foster division in our country.  That's why I'm curious why you allow certain threads whose only intent is to demonize the other side to flourish here.  
Click to expand...
A good part of it's that the lines are often blurry. 

A thread may be ok but posts in it are over the line. People that one person says is "demonizing" another person will claim is just stating facts.

With a board this size, it's nearly an impossible task. But we try. You don't see all the posts that are pruned daily here or the people that are suspended. And when the people that do have posts pruned or are suspended, 99.9% of the time they feel they were unfairly treated.

It's a crappy job. Enough that we question daily if the forum is worth keeping. We spend a ton of money and time on this and lots of folks feel as negative about the forums as you do. So not sure of the answer. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
glvsav37 said:
So if we are all agreeing that the media has an agenda (either side) and click bait exists....then why are constantly fighting with each other and using these blatant opinion pieces as weapons??...And dont get me started on Memes!!! We say its click bait, but we buy into it hook line and sinker when it aligns with whatever point we may be trying to make, valid or not. Along with that, is the people who quote these talking heads as if their 30 seconds of airtime is gospel. There is very little of daily "news shows" that are actually news anymore. Anytime you have people sitting around a table "reporting" the only thing they are reporting is their (or the station's) opinion. 

@Joe Bryant words indeed matter and whenever I have this conversation with anyone, I always point them to allsides.com where they take daily topics and list the headlines from 3 sources in various Left, Right and center leaning papers. On some topics it is amazing to see how the headline alone can be so critically polarizing and obviously written to provoke a response.  

 
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

To the bold, in my view, people just like to argue and feel "right".  It's a select group of people that ironically don't seem to realize they are arguing with the other side of the exact same coin....two peas in a pod as it were.  But their perception is they are completely different, right and just.

ETA:  I'll throw in there social media....I am sorta taken back by how many people go to social media for "news" not understanding how those outlets are put together and how they make money.  Millions of little echo chambers, mostly devoid of reality and when they come together it's WWIII.  They are not to be outdone by those who obsess over our mainstream media and continually watch it and use it as barometers for anything.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
:goodposting:

To the bold, in my view, people just like to argue and feel "right".  It's a select group of people that ironically don't seem to realize they are arguing with the other side of the exact same coin....two peas in a pod as it were.  But their perception is they are completely different, right and just.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And I actually think it's a larger than just a select group that don't realize they're arguing the stuff they do the same on the other side of the coin. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Bryant said:
Agreed. And I actually think it's a larger than just a select group that don't realize they're arguing the stuff they do the same on the other side of the coin. 

But bottom line, I think we've managed to transform having an opinion to become labeling that person as "good" or "evil". And people are going to defend that. 
Click to expand...
Truth here too....and I'm not sure why people are so uncomfortable with having a differing opinion from someone else.  It's almost like they NEED people to agree with them.  Again, I think social media and our news media plays a role in that.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
Words Matter
Replies
17
Views
636
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
GordonGekko
Reviewing Candice Owen's Black Lives Matter Documentary - "The Greatest Lie Ever Sold" (10/25/22 20:11 PST)
Replies
13
Views
712
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
GordonGekko
Scott Chipman/AALM: Biden's Marijuana Pardons Will Have "No Real Impact Other Than The Headlines” (10/8/22 11:47 PST)
Replies
17
Views
552
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top