Similarly, titles in modern media such as electronic news headlines are often adjusted, not by authors but by media managers and personnel, in order to attract readers. Thus, titles are sometimes manipulated and used for organization and targeting.
The challenge that we as readers are presented with, in any title, is in the ability to decipher what our attention is being directed to, and why. Many times we find that the why holds much more weight, and we should always be cognizant of that aspect of our information intake.
To read, or not to read, is the question. The answer is often exhibited in negative ways. So-called "click-bait" titles and blurbs are an unfortunate reality that drive the tendency to absorb inauthentic sentiments and played-up blurbs and intros, with no commitment to the main content . . . which is the entirety of information behind the face of the presentation (often from a juxtaposed perspective).
Behavioral Shortcomings in Media
Our behavior is closely related to the information we receive. It is therefore tantamount to reason and logic that we maintain our ability to decode the multitude of messages completely into a form of data that we can then use to make responsible decisions in our relay of information and actions.- Too often, we choose not to read the content, and who can blame us. It didn't take us long to learn that a hyperbolic title or lead didn't necessarily culminate in any news, so we stopped clicking through nearly as often as we once did.
- We sometimes share what we haven't read, because we agree with an intro or cannot resist sharing a funny image. This space is where a lot of neglect occurs. The reality is that there may be more work beyond this immediate, facing content (for the responsible reader and accountable community). Social media titles, blurbs and commentary can be bad indications of content, and often have been completely changed from an author's intended messaging.
- Compounding these above, social media blurbs are sometimes written to 'wrap up' content for readers in ways that indicate a completion of sentiment, which can encourage readers (especially of distinct groups) to move on without inspecting actual content or source. This is especially prevalent in social communication and politics.
These are steps back that put us farther behind where we would be if our only neglect had been an absence of confirmation research beyond the presented content.
The Constant Challenge of Truth
This scenario isn't much different from any historical dissemination of information to the public—a process long fraught with deluders. The vessel, or platform, is an encasement, adorned with the impressions of a producer's intent in sending messages. At this stage, there may or may not have been a bevy of editorial attention to the message.
As in works of art, such as paintings, the audience sees a surface but usually must decipher any meaning that may apply to them, the artist, or to others. This has become more evident in modern journalism's many iterations and multitude of access points. In reading, watching and listening . . . whether to social media content, news or commentary publications and programs . . . published books . . . we're at our most accountable when we evaluate the content, the source, and other factors of presentation.
A free public shouldn't need a governing entity (state, tech giants) to do this kind of evaluation for them. Powerful tech giants like Facebook and Google should refrain from attempts to govern civic journalism and communication under the auspice of guardianship of the truth, or 'stopping fake news'-- all risks inherent in both traditional and AI applications of the information business.
Beyond any particular publication, it is the public's privilege, in a free society, to have access to information and freedom to distribute it. It is much better to do the work, as they say: each person with their individual instinct to root out the wrongful propagandists and fake news outlets. In fact, there are resources—new and old—designed to help us do just that, one prime example being Media Bias/Fact Check.
Facebook and the like are each distinct business models, and constantly evolving. In a sense, under new demands of accountability, they must go beyond their original intent of free and open platform provision in order to retain profit, trust and survival. Currently, such platforms are threatening to become the publishers, in a sense, in the interest of not only profit but also national security. Our Tech Giants are well on their way to becoming our new Giants of Journalism.
Another apt prediction might be that we'll find the new top-paid research editors working for the these new tech/journalism giants more often than for any traditional publication. It's already begun.
RELATED READING:
America's Dirty, Global War on Journalists, by David Sirota (2013)
