• ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    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.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      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).

      • ajoebyanyothername@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.