3 ms·

The grizzlies are mentioned in passive voice, which by definition makes a subject acted on (rather than the acting one) in a sentence. While I see what you’re

The grizzlies are mentioned in passive voice, which by definition makes a subject acted on (rather than the acting one) in a sentence. While I see what you’re getting at from a human reader standpoint, in reality the reason for this phrasing (instead of the grammatically equivalent “Trains keep hitting drunk grizzlies”) is that starting with “Drunk grizzlies” just makes for an unmistakably better headline.

black_puppydog 3y ago
Right, the cause for the outcome might be (also messed-up) media industry incentives, but the outcome is still that the more accurate "we keep getting grizzlies drunk then running them over" stance gets replaced by something that reads more like it's their fault.
- isametry 3y ago
  The messed up incentives of… Seeking as much attention as possible, which is as old as media itself and arguably the very purpose of its existence. Yeah, I guess you’re right. But then again, I’m afraid there’s bigger evils to fight in this world. Plus in this particular case, apart from the feelings it might generate in more engaged readers such as you, I don’t think the title has further real-life implications. People conscious enough to actually have an impact on the matter (e.g. those to potentially reach out to organizations, or appeal to railroad companies directly to secure their cargo better) will surely read the article and realize the bears are 100% the victims. Whereas the people who will think “haha, stoopid wasted bears” and move on, wouldn’t have actively done anything about the situation to begin with. They might still share the article though, which in turn increases its reach and improves its chance of finding someone who cares. If there’s a fallacy here please call me out, but at this moment I don’t think the “sensationalized” element in this title is a bad thing. At worst it’s neutral, apart from earning Cowboy State Daily some (un)deserved bucks.
PoignardAzur 3y ago
Alternate headline: "Drunk grizzlies, and why trains keep hitting them".

black_puppydog 3y ago

Right, the cause for the outcome might be (also messed-up) media industry incentives, but the outcome is still that the more accurate "we keep getting grizzlies drunk then running them over" stance gets replaced by something that reads more like it's their fault.

isametry 3y ago
The messed up incentives of… Seeking as much attention as possible, which is as old as media itself and arguably the very purpose of its existence. Yeah, I guess you’re right. But then again, I’m afraid there’s bigger evils to fight in this world. Plus in this particular case, apart from the feelings it might generate in more engaged readers such as you, I don’t think the title has further real-life implications. People conscious enough to actually have an impact on the matter (e.g. those to potentially reach out to organizations, or appeal to railroad companies directly to secure their cargo better) will surely read the article and realize the bears are 100% the victims. Whereas the people who will think “haha, stoopid wasted bears” and move on, wouldn’t have actively done anything about the situation to begin with. They might still share the article though, which in turn increases its reach and improves its chance of finding someone who cares. If there’s a fallacy here please call me out, but at this moment I don’t think the “sensationalized” element in this title is a bad thing. At worst it’s neutral, apart from earning Cowboy State Daily some (un)deserved bucks.

PoignardAzur 3y ago

Alternate headline: "Drunk grizzlies, and why trains keep hitting them".