4 ms·
Goodness! The avocado one was two stories fewer than eighteen months apart. It almost looks like they were intending to get caught.
by wyldfire 7y ago
Goodness! The avocado one was two stories fewer than eighteen months apart. It almost looks like they were intending to get caught.
- pjc50 7y agoMore that they don't care if they get caught. You could run diametrically opposing articles a week apart and not expect the readership to care enough to stop buying the paper. Several papers run opposite stories locally: DMG Media (owners of the Mail) notoriously did this with the HPV vaccine. Irish Mail were in favour, UK Daily Mail were against, on the same day. The Sun vs Scottish Sun is another repeat offender.
- dTal 7y agoSounds a bit like A/B testing with public opinion.
- dsfyu404ed 7y agoOr catering to two different groups. Like selling arms to both sides.
- 45ure 7y agoI would say they are Red-teaming (any relation to red-tops is unintentional). They already know their audience, so they strive to reduce the unknowns or false-positives.
- OJFord 7y agoA common one (enough that it's a joke) is that red wine (or dark chocolate) either prevents or causes cancer (or heart disease). I can't recall which paper (in the UK), but there was one that run both stories (whichever consumable it was both caused and prevented whichever disease it was) on the same day, same publication! Because it's not even about spin, it's just 'content' getting written and published and read. I'm not sure what the (actual) newspaper equivalent phrase is for 'generating clicks', but that's all it is.
- pjc50 7y agoAh, you need https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ ! It is of course the Mail. These days they too rely on clicks a lot; the "reach" of the online version is more than the print version. https://www.newsworks.org.uk/daily-mail https://www.newsworks.org.uk/daily-mail