Why "Shameless, Sensationalist, and Ethically-Dubious" headlines actually matter... Click Here!!

7 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
This is actually a pretty good article, IMHO:
Newspapers are still putting boring headlines on amazing stories like the Jamie Gilt shooting. Why?
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Good article. I do click on Mail Online frequently because of their headlines. And they usually deliver ... not like it's all fluff just to get you to read it.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583983].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author David Beroff
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Good article. I do click on Mail Online frequently because of their headlines. And they usually deliver ... not like it's all fluff just to get you to read it.
      True.

      I've sometimes wondered why some of their articles seem to explore American stories a bit more than the corresponding local, American papers. The above piece even touches on that aspect.
      Signature
      Put MY voice on YOUR video: AwesomeAmericanAudio.com
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583992].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lanfear63
        My Parents had the Daily Mail newspaper delivered every day. It's a tabloid but not in the trashiest sense. It's political stance was Conservative. It was the sort of newspaper that had all the essential news and also some interesting articals. It was always a must read. Yes, they sometimes got it wrong but always apologised for inaccuracies. To read, it hovered somewhere in the middle. Not overly intellectual but not trashy either.
        Signature

        Where ever you go, there you are.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584023].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author positivenegative
          Originally Posted by lanfear63 View Post

          My Parents had the Daily Mail newspaper delivered every day. It's a tabloid but not in the trashiest sense. It's political stance was Conservative. It was the sort of newspaper that had all the essential news and also some interesting articals. It was always a must read. Yes, they sometimes got it wrong but always apologised for inaccuracies. To read, it hovered somewhere in the middle. Not overly intellectual but not trashy either.
          Agree with you there Ian. Although over the past few years most "shout-out" headlines on the front pages of the Mail (as with The Express) are health related, and usually some purported wonder cure. Of course almost all of these have not been tested and proven, and some really have little substance or foundation, but it's the Mail's shifty way (because health matters) of attracting attention and buyers in a very rapidly declining British newspaper industry. They also contradict themselves in many of these articles.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584090].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author mkii
      Banned
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Good article. I do click on Mail Online frequently because of their headlines. And they usually deliver ... not like it's all fluff just to get you to read it.
      dailymail.co.uk ??? That's a tabloid. They manipulate the facts in every single article. I can't discuss politics here so I'll pick vitamins.

      So what vitamin pills do the doctors take? | Daily Mail Online
      So Doctor's take them, got it.
      Vitamins 'can raise cancer risk' | Daily Mail Online
      If you overdo anything it can raise cancer risk.
      Why every man should take this female vitamin | Daily Mail Online
      Interesting medial advice from not my doctor.
      How vitamin D can give you more energy and lower blood pressure | Daily Mail Online
      I thought they raised cancer risks?
      Vitamin pill 'danger' | Daily Mail Online
      Whoa, so do I take them or not?

      My favorite:
      Vitamin pills 'are useless' | Daily Mail Online
      Oh. So. Right. Take them, don't take them, they're useless. Doctor's take them. Wow.

      I wonder why people are confused about vitamins? HMM.

      LOL... Example, the main article on there right now... Man that selection bias is abusive. A very "tasteful" blend of facts and colorful language. I'm just talking in a pure journalistic sense: that's not a fair way to tell that story. For example, if you head to CNN, they're covering the same story but it's being reported as is, it's not being heavily distorted.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584108].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
        Banned
        Originally Posted by mkii View Post

        LOL... Example, the main article on there right now... Man that selection bias is abusive. A very "tasteful" blend of facts and colorful language. I'm just talking in a pure journalistic sense: that's not a fair way to tell that story. For example, if you head to CNN, they're covering the same story but it's being reported as is, it's not being heavily distorted.
        It's just entertainment to me. I like their writing and their stories. I don't only read one source of information, so I get the sames news spun by all the organizations that report it, and CNN spins as much as the rest.

        Reuters and Associated Press is where I get the straight news without spin.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    I too read some of the stuff the Mail publishes after seeing a catchy headline. Those are all genuine news stories though and not the celebrity gossipy shit that infests their sidebars.
    Signature
    Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584069].message }}

Trending Topics