Has headline hyperbole gone too far online? Stewart "obliterates" blogosphere

But what does more clicks equal? It doesn't matter if more people see it if it doesn't say anything relevant.

More quantity does not equal more quality so the math fails in that case

From a business stand point how could any news organization survive if money wasn't the first order of business? It's a matter of figuring out what the market wants and the market wants hyperbole (Fox = most trusted name in news).

Jon Stewart has got his niche by being funny, while providing some quality journalism (though he would never admit that last part). But, John Stewart is just as hyperbolic as Glenn Beck, the only thing is he ends it with a wink and a smile.
In some ways hyperbole can meaningful (in the case for the DS, satirizing pundits that turn it up to 11)

The second issue is that headlines are becoming more important than the actual article. So, I'll present you with this case; Would an over blown title be okay with getting readers if the substantive article under it was quality stuff?

In answer to your question, yes it would be okay if the headline was exaggerated if the story itself was of more quality information.

But unfortunately that is rarely the case since your main point has demonstrated the singular focus "from a business standpoint" precludes both since the main priority is profit so that quality of facts is left out.

Since "money is the first order of business" and it has been proven that "sex sells" then why not have pictures of naked women in every story?

That would insure the equation of "more clicks equals more money" from a "business standpoint" wouldn't it?

The flaw in that theory that corporations that own the media are making is that profit is not the only factor involved.

Quality of the information provided with the facts verified and evidence to support the analysis of the story is also necessary not only a narrow focus on the bottom line.

If both were included then it would be ok but the tragedy is that facts and quality of reporting suffers when the focus is on ratings and popularity.

I'll agree with you there. In the end it's really all a balancing between quality journalism and profit. Sure the Huffington Post has some ridiculous headlines to get those clicks, but that doesn't discredit them as a reputable news source for the other great stories they've broke.

But, I think my response might have been confusing. I don't think that news should be profit motivated. I was trying to offer why this hyperbole shtick was happening from the news outlets perspective. And from their perspective this is what people want. How to reengage with the audience in a responsible matter that won't put the company in the tubes is another debate. A debate that I hope will reinvigorating good journalism.

Point! +^d.

Isn't there a difference between "strong" verbs that are misleading and more accurate verbs that may not be as evocative?

Would a writing class encourage such exaggeration as "destroy" to describe the kind of derision that The Daily Show used? Or would they favor more accurate description like "humiliated" instead?

If that was the case then they would be teaching students to use the more radical exaggerations like "Has Headline Hyperbole ANALLY RAPED THEN MURDERED AND HID THE BODY OF the Blogosphere?" that was suggested wouldn't they?

Didn't you watch the unedited interview?

Jon himself said his running for Vice President was "a very bad idea since I have pictures in a shoebox that even prevent me from working at the post office"

I guess that was an example of not doing what Mario used as point #4

right that makes total sense...the majority of the population was compelled by political bogs...had nothing to do with the the previous administrations zealous ideology or their embarrassing incompetence and almost complete denial of reality...musta been the blogs

burn!

He's near-genius, isn't he?!

Not to nitpick, but choosing to focus on the US Conservative Media's reaction is an editorial decision. That said, your headline is certainly less sensational.

I should have been more clear. I simply meant I didn't editorialize in the headline. I preface the article by saying that any media advocacy organization will have biases, and that any editorialization is strictly my own. However the facts of the article didn't change for that reason. Sadly they remained the same and I make no claims in the article, only give accurate attributions to conservative media outlets.

The difference between a sensational blog headline and the headline of a news organization should be quite clear in one distinction. The danger a sensational headline like this actually posed in the face of a life and death situation. I would never argue there isn't a right to such sensationalism, its free speech but it can also be argued that irresponsible free speech that persuaded someone from giving to Haitian relief efforts or equated the relief efforts as impeding American national security have caused meaningful harm amongst the electorate and perhaps cost lives. Its sad that wasn't weighed at a so called serious news organization.

But yeah the title of this article should have been "Has Headline Hyperbole ANALLY RAPED THEN MURDERED AND HID THE BODY OF the Blogosphere?"

That was funny as hell.! +^d with feeling!

Seriously,.............still laughing.

Oh man, where were you when I was writing that headline?

Interesting. Do you think "lazy journalism" factors into the recycling of verb use?

Let's say a headline that includes the word "slam" translates into thousands of comments and hundreds of thousands of pageviews, then wouldn't a website looking to increase metrics and ad revenue choose to incorporate that particular word more often?

I'd go with a very low opinion of the American reader.

Excellent points, and you're absolutely right about Current not being immune. But there is a slight difference there, with the exception of the content we produce in house (which is tiny compared to community submissions daily), the community is predominately writing the headlines for stories on the site.

That said, this introduces another very interesting question: "How many people look past the headlines?" If I had to wager a bet, I would rank activity in descending order of magnitude as follows:

1. Read headlines only
2. Click on headlines, scan summary of story
3. Click on headlines, and actually read the story
4. Click on headlines, read story, clickthrough to source materials

My best guess would be that the bulk of activity happens in buckets 1 & 2, whereas 3 & 4 are the exception.

So I ask this, is reading source material the only way to wade through the sensationalism? And a follow up, do people have time to actually do this?

That was what I mainly meant was the community that submits them choosing the headlines.

In answer to your questions, it depends on the quality of the story and the source materials since I have seen a lot of them have very little beyond the headline and even when reading the article it is linked to provides not much more than what posted.

So although I agree with your points 1 & 2 it does depend on the quality of the story since even doing 3 & 4 doesn't guarantee it will help.

Great point. A sexy headline coupled with a sub-par recap of a mediocre source story really doesn't make for very good journalism, but the sad thing is it could make for a really successful piece of content online.

I guess the point I'd like to investigate further is, with the decline of traditional journalism and the rise of new media, where do we draw the line qualitatively?

By the effort put into it I would guess.

Citizen journalist don't have the time or resources that went into the Watergate investigation, but at least they could have enough integrity to know the difference between opinions and facts then check the facts that they do put in the story and present what evidence is available to support them.

I read the source material and all the comments made up to that point. If I don't have the time for that,....I don't read the post. Current is for people with some free time,...this is not where I go for concise "hot off the presses" material to begin with.
It is however a good place to find some diverse perspectives. Interesting folk. My 2 bits.

You had me at "skullfuck".

I like how you think. Thanks for the input!

freedom of cussin

awww yea! i love that movie! evidently there's 3 more sequels but ive only seen the first and second films.