5 ms·

Awful click-bait headline. The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "includin

Awful click-bait headline. The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas". Not listed in the article is that they also shared with Arizona, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Oregon, Tennessee, Illinois, Mississippi, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Michigan, Utah, Wisconsin, Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, New York (State), North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and probably some others that weren't listed. Is this bad? Absolutely. Is this specifically related to abortion? No.

watwut 3y ago
The plates sharing with anti-abortion is definitely worth emphasis, because it carries a lot more risk to a lot more people. And potentially causes a lot more harm.
no_wizard 3y ago
This will however play well with their local audience. I lived in Sacramento for 13 years, its a pretty liberal town. If you wanna get people upset about some stuff, there are ways to get them hooked in by a headline or sign etc. like this. Its shoddy from a journalism perspective, but the Sacbee does put out some good reporting otherwise, however they tailor headlines to the intended audience, thats for sure
- tverbeure 3y ago
  Is it shoddy for a newspaper article to spell out some particular consequences of a general policy?
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    No, but the intention of the headline is definitely a grabber, and I think many (myself included) would prefer more neutral toned headlines, or maybe ones that word it so its more clear that its highlighting in part whats happening, IE: Sheriff Shares License Plate With Other States, Includes Abortion Related Travel May be more fair while still raising the issue
    - moate 3y ago
      The irony being that sharing with more states is WORSE but because the (true) headline is tied to a specific hot button issue you find it bad?
    - InSteady 3y ago
      In some people's view, this is not an issue to pussyfoot around over. The states trying to criminalize personal healthcare decisions certainly aren't. What a dystopian nightmare it would be to be a single mother barely above the poverty line and somehow get time off work and scrape together the cash for a trip several states away to get an abortion, only to wind up in prison for 10 years because mass data collection and dissemination is standard procedure for law enforcement and no one thought to protect the rights and privacy of pregnant women from out of state. It's actually sickening to think about. But yea let's talk more about how they should have written the headline to suit our sensibilities.
      - no_wizard 3y ago
        I think its valid to think about both, I'm not slamming the SacBee for good content here, was simply speaking to their history of headline stuff. I was a subscriber when I lived there, I think they do great reporting. They're 100% right to raise this issue. I also think their headlines are overly tailored to "turn heads", so to speak.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        > trying to criminalize personal healthcare decisions Another one of those technically correct but not accurate statements and perhaps the root of the misunderstanding here. You could also frame it as "prevent the mass murder of children". A headline about this data in another state may say "local police collaborate with murderers" with the same level of accuracy.
        InSteady 3y ago
        >You could also frame it as "prevent the mass murder of children". You could if your notions of the world are informed by superstitions and ancient dogma rather than science. >A headline about this data in another state may say "local police collaborate with murderers" with the same level of accuracy. You've lost the plot.
  - goodbyesf 3y ago
    It is shoddy because it clearly shows an agenda and bias. It's why many people now view companies like sacbee as advocacy groups rather than news organization.
    - moate 3y ago
      There is no neutral reporting. The act of deciding to publish something on page one is an inherent choice NOT to publish other things there. The facts are there, show me the lie in this article (vs the “choice of what to highlight”) which is the only thing that could make it shoddy. Media both creates and reflects people’s attention and anyone pretending it’s only one or the other is showing their own bias.
      - goodbyesf 3y ago
        > There is no neutral reporting. I agree. That was my point. But point this truth out to people who work at sacbee and they'll proclaim they are objective beacons of truth. > Media both creates and reflects people’s attention and anyone pretending it’s only one or the other is showing their own bias. The media pretends it's only one or the other. That's the point.
    - evan_ 3y ago
      It's just Man Bites Dog in action. If states shared data about a murder or something that everyone agrees should be prosecuted, it wouldn't be interesting. Nobody cares about that, because we all agree that if you drive to another state to shoot someone, you should be prosecuted for that. The fact that a Sheriff is sharing data that could be used for a controversial prosecution is interesting and worthy of reporting on.
      - chrismcb 3y ago
        Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be sharing licence part reader info with ANYONE, at least without a warrant. For murder or not. Now it sounds like they are sharing all the data for everyone, which is different than sharing the data in a specific person. I would also be interested in how a state will prosecute someone for doing something legal.
  - chrismcb 3y ago
    It is when it is a made up bogeyman. I would love to see how a state will prosecute someone for doing something legal in another state. It isn't going to happen. So no reason for this paper to bring it up. The real issue is sharing this data with ANYONE, not just out of state.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I lived in Sacramento for 13 years, its a pretty liberal town. But, with only a 16 point registration advantage for Democrats over Republicans, Sac County is right-of-center for California.
  - no_wizard 3y ago
    Yes, but also, its more nuanced than that. If you look at this in broad spectrum, its hard not to draw that conclusion, however, if you look at how the city tends to vote on a more issue to issue basis, or responds to issues like this, it tends to go up and to the right in terms of supporting liberal policies, by overwhelming majority. Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff). Then if you pivot to say, gun control, you go up and to the right on the liberal scale again, overwhelming majority support further measures on gun control to limit firearms. Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again. Its not as cut and dry as those statistics suggest
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > If you look at this in broad spectrum, its hard not to draw that conclusion, however, if you look at how the city tends to vote on a more issue to issue basis, or responds to issues like this, it tends to go up and to the right in terms of supporting liberal policies, by overwhelming majority. Well, the city is somewhat more liberal than the county as a whole, but even there, compared to the state as a whole, I think you are wrong. (But, yes, a +16 advantage for D's over R’s at even the county level is an overwhelming majority to start with; Decline to State even has a two-point advantage over the GOP in the county.) > Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff). Compared to other California local governments? Again, I don’t think so. > Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again. What even is “conservative” in this context?
      - mensetmanusman 3y ago
Analemma_ 3y ago
What you call "awful click-bait", I call "literally true as stated". The Sacramento sheriff is, in fact, sharing license plate reader data with anti-abortion states. If you have a problem with that headline, I suspect your actual motivation might be to try and squash news you find inconvenient.
- gotoeleven 3y ago
  The Analemma_ school of journalism is why no one trusts the news anymore.
- orangecat 3y ago
  Come on. If a politician argues in favor of universal health care, would it be reasonable for a headline to say "John Doe supports taxpayer-funded medical treatments for child abusers"?
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    On the other hand, it would not be so dishonest to characterize an unremovable app that tracked your location 24/7 as an app that tracked your location 24/7 "for abusive partners." (Because, guess what they end up being used for.)
    - InSteady 3y ago
      No you don't understand, if I have a single gripe or nit-pick about an article then the headline is automatically clickbait. Now lets talk about the headline ad nauseum instead of discussing the issues at hand (rinse, repeat for every contentious issue posted on HN or reddit).
  - tevon 3y ago
    This is an excellent counter-example. Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth". Likely because the headline implies intent (or expects its audience to assume intent), where it doesn't appear any intent exists.
yellowapple 3y ago
> The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas". something something "plausible deniability" something something
drewcoo 3y ago
Not click-bait at all! The headline accurately describes why the EFF is upset. Here's a second chance to read paragraph 2 that you apparently missed: > The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.

watwut 3y ago

The plates sharing with anti-abortion is definitely worth emphasis, because it carries a lot more risk to a lot more people. And potentially causes a lot more harm.

no_wizard 3y ago

This will however play well with their local audience. I lived in Sacramento for 13 years, its a pretty liberal town. If you wanna get people upset about some stuff, there are ways to get them hooked in by a headline or sign etc. like this. Its shoddy from a journalism perspective, but the Sacbee does put out some good reporting otherwise, however they tailor headlines to the intended audience, thats for sure

tverbeure 3y ago
Is it shoddy for a newspaper article to spell out some particular consequences of a general policy?
- no_wizard 3y ago
  No, but the intention of the headline is definitely a grabber, and I think many (myself included) would prefer more neutral toned headlines, or maybe ones that word it so its more clear that its highlighting in part whats happening, IE: Sheriff Shares License Plate With Other States, Includes Abortion Related Travel May be more fair while still raising the issue
  - moate 3y ago
    The irony being that sharing with more states is WORSE but because the (true) headline is tied to a specific hot button issue you find it bad?
  - InSteady 3y ago
    In some people's view, this is not an issue to pussyfoot around over. The states trying to criminalize personal healthcare decisions certainly aren't. What a dystopian nightmare it would be to be a single mother barely above the poverty line and somehow get time off work and scrape together the cash for a trip several states away to get an abortion, only to wind up in prison for 10 years because mass data collection and dissemination is standard procedure for law enforcement and no one thought to protect the rights and privacy of pregnant women from out of state. It's actually sickening to think about. But yea let's talk more about how they should have written the headline to suit our sensibilities.
    - no_wizard 3y ago
      I think its valid to think about both, I'm not slamming the SacBee for good content here, was simply speaking to their history of headline stuff. I was a subscriber when I lived there, I think they do great reporting. They're 100% right to raise this issue. I also think their headlines are overly tailored to "turn heads", so to speak.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      > trying to criminalize personal healthcare decisions Another one of those technically correct but not accurate statements and perhaps the root of the misunderstanding here. You could also frame it as "prevent the mass murder of children". A headline about this data in another state may say "local police collaborate with murderers" with the same level of accuracy.
      - InSteady 3y ago
        >You could also frame it as "prevent the mass murder of children". You could if your notions of the world are informed by superstitions and ancient dogma rather than science. >A headline about this data in another state may say "local police collaborate with murderers" with the same level of accuracy. You've lost the plot.
- goodbyesf 3y ago
  It is shoddy because it clearly shows an agenda and bias. It's why many people now view companies like sacbee as advocacy groups rather than news organization.
  - moate 3y ago
    There is no neutral reporting. The act of deciding to publish something on page one is an inherent choice NOT to publish other things there. The facts are there, show me the lie in this article (vs the “choice of what to highlight”) which is the only thing that could make it shoddy. Media both creates and reflects people’s attention and anyone pretending it’s only one or the other is showing their own bias.
    - goodbyesf 3y ago
      > There is no neutral reporting. I agree. That was my point. But point this truth out to people who work at sacbee and they'll proclaim they are objective beacons of truth. > Media both creates and reflects people’s attention and anyone pretending it’s only one or the other is showing their own bias. The media pretends it's only one or the other. That's the point.
  - evan_ 3y ago
    It's just Man Bites Dog in action. If states shared data about a murder or something that everyone agrees should be prosecuted, it wouldn't be interesting. Nobody cares about that, because we all agree that if you drive to another state to shoot someone, you should be prosecuted for that. The fact that a Sheriff is sharing data that could be used for a controversial prosecution is interesting and worthy of reporting on.
    - chrismcb 3y ago
      Law enforcement agencies shouldn't be sharing licence part reader info with ANYONE, at least without a warrant. For murder or not. Now it sounds like they are sharing all the data for everyone, which is different than sharing the data in a specific person. I would also be interested in how a state will prosecute someone for doing something legal.
- chrismcb 3y ago
  It is when it is a made up bogeyman. I would love to see how a state will prosecute someone for doing something legal in another state. It isn't going to happen. So no reason for this paper to bring it up. The real issue is sharing this data with ANYONE, not just out of state.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I lived in Sacramento for 13 years, its a pretty liberal town. But, with only a 16 point registration advantage for Democrats over Republicans, Sac County is right-of-center for California.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  Yes, but also, its more nuanced than that. If you look at this in broad spectrum, its hard not to draw that conclusion, however, if you look at how the city tends to vote on a more issue to issue basis, or responds to issues like this, it tends to go up and to the right in terms of supporting liberal policies, by overwhelming majority. Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff). Then if you pivot to say, gun control, you go up and to the right on the liberal scale again, overwhelming majority support further measures on gun control to limit firearms. Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again. Its not as cut and dry as those statistics suggest
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > If you look at this in broad spectrum, its hard not to draw that conclusion, however, if you look at how the city tends to vote on a more issue to issue basis, or responds to issues like this, it tends to go up and to the right in terms of supporting liberal policies, by overwhelming majority. Well, the city is somewhat more liberal than the county as a whole, but even there, compared to the state as a whole, I think you are wrong. (But, yes, a +16 advantage for D's over R’s at even the county level is an overwhelming majority to start with; Decline to State even has a two-point advantage over the GOP in the county.) > Then you look at housing, and they get more right of center to very conservative, depending on the neighborhood (California famous NIMBY stuff). Compared to other California local governments? Again, I don’t think so. > Then, if you swing back to issues like water rights, they get pretty conservative again. What even is “conservative” in this context?
    - mensetmanusman 3y ago

Analemma_ 3y ago

What you call "awful click-bait", I call "literally true as stated". The Sacramento sheriff is, in fact, sharing license plate reader data with anti-abortion states. If you have a problem with that headline, I suspect your actual motivation might be to try and squash news you find inconvenient.

gotoeleven 3y ago
The Analemma_ school of journalism is why no one trusts the news anymore.
orangecat 3y ago
Come on. If a politician argues in favor of universal health care, would it be reasonable for a headline to say "John Doe supports taxpayer-funded medical treatments for child abusers"?
- whatshisface 3y ago
  On the other hand, it would not be so dishonest to characterize an unremovable app that tracked your location 24/7 as an app that tracked your location 24/7 "for abusive partners." (Because, guess what they end up being used for.)
  - InSteady 3y ago
    No you don't understand, if I have a single gripe or nit-pick about an article then the headline is automatically clickbait. Now lets talk about the headline ad nauseum instead of discussing the issues at hand (rinse, repeat for every contentious issue posted on HN or reddit).
- tevon 3y ago
  This is an excellent counter-example. Taking a strong subset of the truth may be factually correct but doesn't stand up to the standard of "the truth". Likely because the headline implies intent (or expects its audience to assume intent), where it doesn't appear any intent exists.

yellowapple 3y ago

> The sheriff dep't isn't doing this _specifically_ with "anti-abortion states", they're doing this broadly with other states "including Alabama, Oklahoma and Texas". something something "plausible deniability" something something

drewcoo 3y ago

Not click-bait at all! The headline accurately describes why the EFF is upset. Here's a second chance to read paragraph 2 that you apparently missed: > The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) a digital rights group, has sent Cooper a letter requesting that the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office cease sharing ALPR data with out-of-state agencies that could use it to prosecute someone for seeking an abortion.