4 ms·
That’s a shame. The writers of articles usually are not the writers of headlines. Yet you implicate the writer in the deception of the copywriter.
by dmvdoug 3y ago
That’s a shame. The writers of articles usually are not the writers of headlines. Yet you implicate the writer in the deception of the copywriter.
- sokoloff 3y agoThe writers of articles have far more per-capita influence over headlines than the readers do. If they want to maximize the reach and value of their work, they should exercise that influence. Meanwhile, I'm doing my best by exercising the only influence that I have in the situation: hitting the X.
- dmvdoug 3y agoOn the contrary, they have identical per capita influence: 0. At least as far as I understand how newspapers, magazines, etc. work. Blog writers? Sure.
- sokoloff 3y agoWriters work for publishers. If a publisher writes misleading headlines, causing your work to be devalued, don’t work with them. If you keep working with them, you’re financially benefiting from and thereby complicit in their deceit.
- dmvdoug 3y agoI mean, that’s about as facile a claim as can be made. Sounds great in theory but in reality people working in print media don’t exactly have an expanding field full of opportunities for work.
- sokoloff 3y agoWhich brings us back to them being part of a system which is deceiving readers for financial gain. Hardly something that I feel a compulsion or obligation to support, even if only half of the partnership is directly involved in lying.
- dmvdoug 3y agoYeah. So, if you were actually consistent in this stance, I don’t see how you could participate in really any piece of the modern economy. But I suspect you’re not consistent in this stance. I suspect it just bothers you more in this domain than others. But then, it’s normal for us humans to dress up our emotional responses in principled justifications.