3 ms·
I agree with the first paragraph but not necessarily the latter. More likely to me seems that the journalists see something that can be construed to be harmful
by Aachen 3y ago
I agree with the first paragraph but not necessarily the latter. More likely to me seems that the journalists see something that can be construed to be harmful (so they can justify the story), as well as having a high click rate (see, it ends up on HN), and thus good for business
- saaaaaam 3y agoA lot of Guardian readers excoriate the Daily Mail as low quality clickbait and "not journalism", whilst seeming perfectly content to suckle from the teats of the Guardian's own clickbait farm, presumably comforting themselves that there is some sort of intellectual honesty present in the Guardian that is missing from the Daily Mail. I find it quite strange.
- Aachen 3y agoNot sure this "us vs. them" stuff / generalising every reader of a website is helping anyone here
- saaaaaam 3y agoNot to be pernickety, but I did say “a lot of” not “all of”… And in the context of this conversation which was about clickbait on the guardian I felt it was a contextually valid observation. I’m sorry you didn’t find it helpful.