3 ms·
Is it the news agency's fault, or the reader's fault? In this case, it really isn't clear that it's not "real news". But I see plenty of people on social media
by toomanybeersies 6y ago
Is it the news agency's fault, or the reader's fault? In this case, it really isn't clear that it's not "real news". But I see plenty of people on social media sharing articles from news sites where they're clearly marked as an editorial or opinion piece, and believing or treating them as if they were exactly the same as a news article that attempts to paint a neutral picture of the facts.
Do newspapers need to put an explanation of what an opinion piece is at the top of every opinion piece?
- manigandham 6y agoPerhaps newspapers should stop running opinions and editorials altogether, or move them to an entirely different brand.
- dahfizz 6y agoI don't really think that's the answer. Actual physical newspapers ran editorials / opinions for decades without a problem. I think the solution is better UI/UX.
- manigandham 6y agoA separate brand would be a better UX. It's clear that internet distribution is very different from physical newspapers and people don't pay much attention to the domain and styling.
- dahfizz 6y agoIMO, it is the news agency's responsibility to make it absolutely clear to the user what they are reading. If a majority of people come away with the wrong understanding after visiting a website, that is the website's fault. It's a clear UX problem. Old paper newspapers accomplished this by physically having a separate section for opinion pieces. It's a harder problem when people share direct links to an article. That said, news agencies don't try very hard. I think it's easy to argue they intentionally make it hard to differentiate. If WSJ really cared about making it clear to the user what this article was, they would have done more than hiding the word "A-hed" in a small font in the top corner.