New York Daily News Clickbait Sensationalism Shock Factor (I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. YOU HAVE TO READ IT FOR YOURSELF)
Hoo boy, that's a long title.
Probably not so recently, internet articles have been using headlines which appeal to our baser instincts of curiosity like never before. This has been done for years, tabloids citing shocking photos of a well known celebrity every week comes to mind, but has become saturated with the rise of the internet.
For better or worse, our curiosity will lead us on a journey, and can be used against us for these meaningless articles which promise to show us something that we have to see to believe. At best, we get a bit of a laugh, at worst we provide ad revenue for a site that regurgitates something created by another whom will not see a dime.
However, just as with anything, clickbait can be used for good, or extreme ill, oftentimes to send a message.
Recall earlier in the year, when French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo used the image of Muhammad on the front cover as a gag. Later, extremists took action against the magazine and killed eleven while injuring eleven others.
Was the magazine in the wrong for posting the image of a religious figure whose depiction is forbidden? Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. That's a debate for another day. Was the response these extremest took wrong? Absolutely.
Did the people of Charlie Hebdo expect opposition to their magazine over the image. No doubt, but obviously not to that extent. Their intent was to engage, like clickbait. Did their message have some deeper meaning other than "Haha, we posted a picture of Muhammed." I doubt it. (In the realm of political satire, the joke from Charlie Hebdo was about as deep and funny as a Jeff Dunham original)
Because of the attack however, it became a symbol for freedom of speech and that terrorism will not stand.
Recently, the New York Daily News posted graphic images of a recent shooting which resulted in the death of two CBS reporters and the injuring of another with the headline "Executed."
Could it have been handled differently? Certainly. Their intent was clear however: This needs to be talked about.
According to all studies, violence and homocide is lower than it has ever been in all of human history, but people are still being murdered and attacked. Weapons are easier to access and use now than they've ever been in human history. We still have weapons in an age when we shouldn't.
It's easy to hear about all the violence that we still have in the world and look the other way, say that it'll get better, and ignore the problems that are still in place which allow the violence to continue. Showing you a disturbing image relating to said violence ensures you remember it exists. And, hopefully, if you remember that two people died because the perpetrator so easily acquired a gun you'll do something about it.
We didn't get to where we are today by staying the same as we were thousands of years ago. Without dialogue, without change, we won't progress as a species.
The clickbait (what do you call print media clickbait?) of New York Daily News can be used for good, and I sincerely hope that was their intention.
Don't be offended by the image on the cover, be offended by the violence that preceded it. Be offended that these deaths were preventable. Be offended that instead of talking about changing laws people are talking about how offended they are by the cover of a fucking newspaper.
We may have lost paradise, but that doesn't mean we can't at least make ourselves a garden.
Probably not so recently, internet articles have been using headlines which appeal to our baser instincts of curiosity like never before. This has been done for years, tabloids citing shocking photos of a well known celebrity every week comes to mind, but has become saturated with the rise of the internet.
For better or worse, our curiosity will lead us on a journey, and can be used against us for these meaningless articles which promise to show us something that we have to see to believe. At best, we get a bit of a laugh, at worst we provide ad revenue for a site that regurgitates something created by another whom will not see a dime.
However, just as with anything, clickbait can be used for good, or extreme ill, oftentimes to send a message.
Recall earlier in the year, when French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo used the image of Muhammad on the front cover as a gag. Later, extremists took action against the magazine and killed eleven while injuring eleven others.
Was the magazine in the wrong for posting the image of a religious figure whose depiction is forbidden? Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. That's a debate for another day. Was the response these extremest took wrong? Absolutely.
Did the people of Charlie Hebdo expect opposition to their magazine over the image. No doubt, but obviously not to that extent. Their intent was to engage, like clickbait. Did their message have some deeper meaning other than "Haha, we posted a picture of Muhammed." I doubt it. (In the realm of political satire, the joke from Charlie Hebdo was about as deep and funny as a Jeff Dunham original)
Because of the attack however, it became a symbol for freedom of speech and that terrorism will not stand.
Recently, the New York Daily News posted graphic images of a recent shooting which resulted in the death of two CBS reporters and the injuring of another with the headline "Executed."
Could it have been handled differently? Certainly. Their intent was clear however: This needs to be talked about.
According to all studies, violence and homocide is lower than it has ever been in all of human history, but people are still being murdered and attacked. Weapons are easier to access and use now than they've ever been in human history. We still have weapons in an age when we shouldn't.
It's easy to hear about all the violence that we still have in the world and look the other way, say that it'll get better, and ignore the problems that are still in place which allow the violence to continue. Showing you a disturbing image relating to said violence ensures you remember it exists. And, hopefully, if you remember that two people died because the perpetrator so easily acquired a gun you'll do something about it.
We didn't get to where we are today by staying the same as we were thousands of years ago. Without dialogue, without change, we won't progress as a species.
The clickbait (what do you call print media clickbait?) of New York Daily News can be used for good, and I sincerely hope that was their intention.
Don't be offended by the image on the cover, be offended by the violence that preceded it. Be offended that these deaths were preventable. Be offended that instead of talking about changing laws people are talking about how offended they are by the cover of a fucking newspaper.
We may have lost paradise, but that doesn't mean we can't at least make ourselves a garden.
No comments have been added yet.
