4 ms·
I appreciate providing the context. however the overgeneralization and emotio al excursion on "journalism" is missing the point of thinking the implicit conte
by froh 3y ago
I appreciate providing the context. however the overgeneralization and emotio al excursion on "journalism" is missing the point of thinking the implicit context of a world wide forum is the usa. the headline per se isn't misleading, not is journalism. what's misleading is the implicit bias in our heads.
- Repulsion9513 3y agoWouldn't you assume that the implicit context of a non-world-wide forum such as a news site was the USA, if almost every article you had previously seen from that forum was covering social or political issues in the USA? Here's their top (place-specific) headlines right now: Tucker Carlson+Putin (US/RU); Alejandro Mayorkas (US); Trump/Taylor Swift (US); Neo-Nazi concerts (EU)
- froh 3y agoyou describe implicit bias and it's effect and it's cause. GP is surprised the article doesn't confirm their implicit bias. and then GP misattributes the surprise to "today's despicable journalism"?? nono. tons of quality journalism is fine. please go and think about your implicit bias. just to be sure we talk about the same thing https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatouchtest.html https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatouchtest.html
- Repulsion9513 3y agoOk, that's great that you're using a word for it. I could not possibly care any less. Why is it bad to assume that a US-centric site is writing a US-centric article when they put "feds" in the title? Why does there being an implicit bias towards expecting a US-centric site to produce US-centric articles, mean that the journalism is not misleading? It doesn't. It is misleading. It is clickbait. You are defending the indefensible.