An amusing juxtaposition I came across I thought I’d share for both readers of this blog (Hi mom!).

Revenue numbers for Facebook recently leaked online.  In perusing the teach headlines the day the news broke, I came across the story in multiple online news outlets.  The facts were relatively straightforward—Facebook reportedly had around $3.5 Billion in cash on hand.  Yet the first three news stories I came across positioned the news in three entirely different ways.  Not slightly different, entirely different:

The Sensationalizer: (Gawker)

 

 

 

The Doomsdayer: (Business Insider)

 

 

 

Just the Facts, Ma’am: (The Guardian)

 

 

Of course the sources for the headlines I cited are outlets many of us avoid as sources for our news.  And, it’s not a new phenomenon that news outlets spin news towards their own agendas.  Yet the days of turning to our print newspapers whose angle on the news we prefer as our only source of news are long gone.  Regular consumers of news online will inevitably click into news stories from varied and distinct websites and without proper awareness we run the risk of being unduly influenced on the subject matter by conclusive headlines.

So it bears reminding ourselves that when we consume news online, we do so with an eye toward not being influenced by headlines and drawing our own conclusions about events based strictly on the facts, we will be best served as modern-day news and media consumers.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>