4 ms·
A bit of click-baiting here, however it is quite interesting how long before :) or ;) etc. become widely accepted eg. in newspapers (assuming that newspapers do
by V-2 11y ago
A bit of click-baiting here, however it is quite interesting how long before :) or ;) etc. become widely accepted eg. in newspapers (assuming that newspapers don't go extinct first).
- PMan74 11y ago> eg. in newspapers http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/12/us-todays-facebook-emojis-twitter http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/oct/12/us-todays-faceb...
- teekert 11y agoI want news in news papers, not the associated emotions of the journalist. Emotions should be kept far away from news, anything subjective should be. Maybe it would work for certain magazines? Still, adding a crying face to a sentence like "Susan lost her first 5 babies" seems horribly inappropriate, this can change of course.
- johnchristopher 11y ago> Emotions should be kept far away from news, (..) Yes. > (continued) anything subjective should be. No.
- V-2 11y agoSubjective is fine, but good practice is keeping factual news and comments separate / distinguishable. Obviously comments are subjective by nature.
- amyjess 11y agoSpeaking of clickbait titles, I'm reminded of Betteridge's law of headlines [0]: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no." [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...
- acheron 11y agoYou are at least the third person in ~30 comments to bring this up, and everyone keeps linking to the Wikipedia article as if we haven't all heard of it a thousand times before. It's a generic dismissal that adds nothing to the conversation. Either engage with the article and say why it's stupid, or just don't post at all and move on.