- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Note:
I swapped the original article at the request of a mod to from a source deemed more reliable, but to avoid confusion when reading the comment section prior to this edit, here is the link to the original article. I chose the Relief Web source listed by some who commented. Cheers!
While I see what you mean by that, is the title being “biased” equal to the article being biased? Seems like all doubts are resolved upon reading the first paragraph.
Most people don’t read the articles, they read titles and they take the inference and go to the comments and fight. Titles that are misleading are effectively lies.
In the propaganda war, titles are ammunition
Okay, good point, like I said, I know what you mean about the title, but does a bad title necessarily mean the article is not factual?
Yes. Misleading title is a lie. Putting that lie into the title of our community makes this entire discussion premised on a lie. Most people are not going to read the article, and the hasbara / propaganda of the title still gets the eyeballs. So it is a net negative
So yes that a bad title necessarily means the article is biased?
Yes. Because the article exists as a tuple of both the title and the content, and the title dominates. The title poisons the article
I think the truth dies only if you don’t read the full article in this case, as is expected of people before posting here…
I can’t believe most people are reading the article before commenting in lemmy
But even supposing they do, all the people who scroll past the article in the feed, are being poisoned by the lie in the title
I don’t believe that either, which is why I sometimes ask them if they have.
Sadly one cannot force anyone to read… one can only expect others to do it.