Read on Twitter
Short thread: Looking at the replies and quote tweets, everyone is accusing Reuters of being maliciously misleading with this story.
Meanwhile, the actual headline and lede of the story both include the much-needed context that everyone is talking about. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1344228032341569537
Meanwhile, the actual headline and lede of the story both include the much-needed context that everyone is talking about. https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1344228032341569537
It's a trend that's been increasingly noticeable over the last few years. A lot of criticism directed at a news outlet won't involve the story itself, but from whatever the news outlet writes in the tweet before linking the actual story.
I guess there are a few reasons for the focus on the tweets rather than the story itself:
1. Attention spans are just that short
2. Those who do read stories are concerned about what group 1 sees.
3. They want the full story in 240 characters and move on to the next one
1. Attention spans are just that short
2. Those who do read stories are concerned about what group 1 sees.
3. They want the full story in 240 characters and move on to the next one
I'd be more sympathetic to the 1st group if it were a long piece. But this Reuters article is 9 paragraphs long and shouldn't take more than 2 minutes to read.
The 3rd group is understandable if the article is hidden behind a paywall, but again, this isn't the case here.
The 3rd group is understandable if the article is hidden behind a paywall, but again, this isn't the case here.
So I guess it boils down to the social media departments of these news outlets, and whether or not they should add more context when writing out the tweets for these stories.
The answer seems obvious when you look at all the misinformation that runs amok on social media. Tweets that seem vague or missing crucial info could only add to that problem (like anti-vaxxers claiming the Reuters' tweet supports their case).
On the other hand, if you can get the full story from the tweet alone, why even bother writing the article? Will more people read the story if they get all the important info from twitter? It's like people expecting an entire plot from the movie trailer.
I get that clickbait can be annoying, and there is a legitimate critique of news outlets being misleading or fear mongering at times.
But often the criticism is either splitting hairs or blaming a headline for not explaining something that is immediately explained in the story.
But often the criticism is either splitting hairs or blaming a headline for not explaining something that is immediately explained in the story.
Any time I ask someone why they are outraged at a news tweet or story, there's always some sort of shifting of the goalposts. "Well, maybe they should have put this paragraph higher" or "they should've added this word/phrase to the headline."
While I haven't written headlines for news outlets, I have written descriptions to videos for MLB and NHL's websites. When you work in a fast-paced environment with tight deadlines, you don't have much time to be nitpicky and fully dissect what you write.
I feel like I'm rambling at this point, but it seems like an area of media critique that isn't being talked about all that much. So much weight is put on social media posts vs. the actual story.
In the case of Reuters, they included all the important facts in their story, yet they're still accused of being misleading/scare-mongering, etc.
Such is journalism in the age of social media. /end rant
Such is journalism in the age of social media. /end rant
