Independent is a terrible outlet. I don’t know why it gets linked so much on social media. Maybe because they have the most click bait titles or something.
The world would probably look a lot different if we’d stop riling each other up all the time. Media outlets like that feed on the hate and only promote it.
Trent did the right thing, even at the expense of his job. He moved on to bigger and better things.
Shame it was fiction; that’s a reality I could get behind.
I would argue that you couldn’t really get much less clickbait-y than the headline here. The only detail it leaves out is what the actual fact that was checked is, and that’s because that explanation wouldn’t fit in a title.
The headline implies a lot of people were laughing at her, at least that was my first impression. When it was really just one guy who gave a brief chuckle at her question. Considering the “laughing” is such a tiny part of what happened, I feel the opposite and it would be tough to make it more clickbait-y.
I mean, it’s exaggerated the situation, but to my mind clickbait is things like ‘you won’t believe what happened to Lauren Boebert’, something that doesn’t really give you anything to go on without reading. This, on the other hand, tells you pretty much all you need to know, other than the specifics of the fact checking, even if it is a touch sensationalised.
Both your title and the title that was use require you to click on the link in order to have any idea of what happened. The difference is that the real title misrepresents what actually happened to get you to do so. I would still rank it as worse.
Well, every article or story want you to read the whole thing, otherwise newspapers and magazines would cut themselves down to only headlines. In my opinion, headlines like this one give you an overview, and give you enough to decide if you’d want to read more, for details, context etc., whereas ‘clickbait’ headlines don’t even give you that, and you have to click to find out whether you want to read more or not. This title still tells you who (Boebert), what (laughed at), where (House floor), and why (fact checked), even if not when, so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want, even if slightly exaggerating the extent.
so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want
No, it covers none of the information I want. Thats my point. They use deception and leave a similar open question as the other title to get you to click, the other title just leaves an open question to get you to click the link (although, to be fair, it would be a lie because I would not be surprised by it. Lol).
Maybe I’m just being too forgiving, but I don’t have an issue with this headline. For me, something being clickbait or not comes down to whether I have to open the article to get an overview or if I can get it from the headline alone. In this case, I’d say it’s the latter. You are more than welcome to your own opinion on that.
Who wrote that article? The amount of typos and misspellings is insane.
I’m not a fan or sympathiser for Boebert but nothing in the way the article is written seems to imply impartial journalism. We are so fucked.
Independent is a terrible outlet. I don’t know why it gets linked so much on social media. Maybe because they have the most click bait titles or something.
The world would probably look a lot different if we’d stop riling each other up all the time. Media outlets like that feed on the hate and only promote it.
That’s why Trent Crimm left.
Trent did the right thing, even at the expense of his job. He moved on to bigger and better things.
Shame it was fiction; that’s a reality I could get behind.
I would argue that you couldn’t really get much less clickbait-y than the headline here. The only detail it leaves out is what the actual fact that was checked is, and that’s because that explanation wouldn’t fit in a title.
The headline implies a lot of people were laughing at her, at least that was my first impression. When it was really just one guy who gave a brief chuckle at her question. Considering the “laughing” is such a tiny part of what happened, I feel the opposite and it would be tough to make it more clickbait-y.
I mean, it’s exaggerated the situation, but to my mind clickbait is things like ‘you won’t believe what happened to Lauren Boebert’, something that doesn’t really give you anything to go on without reading. This, on the other hand, tells you pretty much all you need to know, other than the specifics of the fact checking, even if it is a touch sensationalised.
Both your title and the title that was use require you to click on the link in order to have any idea of what happened. The difference is that the real title misrepresents what actually happened to get you to do so. I would still rank it as worse.
Well, every article or story want you to read the whole thing, otherwise newspapers and magazines would cut themselves down to only headlines. In my opinion, headlines like this one give you an overview, and give you enough to decide if you’d want to read more, for details, context etc., whereas ‘clickbait’ headlines don’t even give you that, and you have to click to find out whether you want to read more or not. This title still tells you who (Boebert), what (laughed at), where (House floor), and why (fact checked), even if not when, so covers a lot of the vital information you’d want, even if slightly exaggerating the extent.
No, it covers none of the information I want. Thats my point. They use deception and leave a similar open question as the other title to get you to click, the other title just leaves an open question to get you to click the link (although, to be fair, it would be a lie because I would not be surprised by it. Lol).
Maybe I’m just being too forgiving, but I don’t have an issue with this headline. For me, something being clickbait or not comes down to whether I have to open the article to get an overview or if I can get it from the headline alone. In this case, I’d say it’s the latter. You are more than welcome to your own opinion on that.
I like to think “rouge bureaucrats” is another name for conservative bureaucrats.