Typical pattern: “Scientists find something strange when they look at a common whatever - and it’s not good!”

This kind of crap used to be the style of little blurbs at the side or the bottom of an article, but it’s in the headlines now. Until you click the headline you don’t even really know what the article is about anymore - just the general topic area, with maybe a fear trigger.

Clicking on the headline is going to display ads, but at that point the goal isn’t to get you to buy anything yet, it’s just to generate ad impressions, which the content provider gets paid for regardless of whether you even see the ads. It’s a weird meta-revenue created by the delivery mechanism, and it has altered the substance of headlines, and our expectations of what “headline” even means.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    3·
    8 hours ago

    Predominantly? Seems to be 100% and many times they are contradicted by the article. At this point I assume a fear headline is overblown bullshit. Also health headlines are always the same crap repeated over and over.

    which the content provider gets paid for regardless of whether you even see the ads.

    I don’t understand why businesses waste their money on buying these garbage ads. Pissing away their ad dollars.

  • altphoto@lemmy.today
    7·
    10 hours ago

    That’s why I stopped reading the news. Instead I get my news here and I have to interpret what they mean for me locally. Its extremely bullshit. Now orange man has bit into NPR and PBS. When that institution disappears, I won’t have a leg to stand on. I’ll be a mindless robot going to work. Suddenly they come and tag one of my balls with a chip because they said they would but nobody was there to tell us.

  • superkret@feddit.org
    83·
    11 hours ago

    want to read news
    don’t want to pay for news
    news start to use ads to get money
    ads pay for clicks
    complain about clickbait news

    – average internet user

    • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
      2·
      6 hours ago

      In fairness, I haven’t found a good paid news aggregator that has those paid sources. I sincerely doubt that most people can pay $10/month each to read NYT, The Economist, Bloomberg, WSJ, their local big newspaper, Wired, and whatever else might be useful.

      • superkret@feddit.org
        1·
        6 hours ago

        Well yeah that’s your brain that’s used to the Internet. One newspaper and maybe a weekly journal with Op-Eds and background reports is enough to stay informed.
        You don’t need to read every article from every point of view.

        • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
          2·
          5 hours ago

          One newspaper is enough to get a shallow understanding of something, but it’s not enough to get a more nuanced understanding. Even then, not every newspaper covers every story, so you’ll need multiple even for a shallow understanding about XYZ.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 hours ago

      I pay for two news subscriptions, and I’d like into invite any of y’all who can afford to, to do similar

      • superkret@feddit.org
        4·
        8 hours ago

        Same here.
        Fun fact: I was recently forced to find a new apartment.
        Instead of throwing myself into the grinder that is the online rent market, I posted an ad in the local newspaper (it cost 36€).
        Several landlords answered and basically told me they don’t like to look for renters online either.
        After all, most landlords are senior citizens.
        The apartment I found through the newspaper was much better and cheaper than anything available online.
        So the way I see it, the newspaper subscription saved me around 200-300€/month for the foreseeable future.

    • viking@infosec.pub
      3·
      10 hours ago

      And that’s exactly why I read German news only, they are paid with tax money and there’s a governing body in place that ensures objectivity.

      Of course there are private magazines and stuff, but as long as you stay clear of them, you’re by and large good to go.

  • jecxjo@midwest.socialEnglish
    2·
    9 hours ago

    omg do i hate that. especial those commentators who want to claim something was politically devastating when we all know no one gave a shit.

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    4·
    11 hours ago

    “news headlines” should be “opinion headlines”. I’m going back to Jack Webb from Dragnet…“Just the facts, ma’am.”.

  • Darren@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    21·
    9 hours ago

    I don’t really mind clickbaity headlines, but I’m getting real tired of LIVE headlines, where instead of writing a story they just do Mastodon-style live reactions, like me getting pissed and watching Eurovision.

  • crozilla@lemmy.world
    1·
    9 hours ago

    Tell your friends and family not to fall for it then. Ad dicks will come up with something new and equally horrible.

  • Nyticus@kbin.melroy.org
    5·
    16 hours ago

    For quite a while, yes.

    Anytime I see headlines that say “you won’t guess what’s next!” “you won’t believe this!” or any other variation is a immediate avoid.

    I think Lemmy owes itself a savedyouaclick instance.

  • ripcord@lemmy.world
    261·
    2 days ago

    While we’re at it, does anyone on Lemmy hate capitalism? I never see anyone mention it.

    And that Trump guy is really not turning out well.

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    76·
    2 days ago

    Yeah I made c/savedyouaclick in the hope of getting people de-clickbaiting stories, but I was the only poster afaict. I wonder if calling it newssummararies could help.