Two headlines caught my eye this morning:
“Why Vaccines Alone Will Not End The Pandemic” – The New York Times
“COVID-19 will likely be with us forever. Here’s how we’ll live with it.” – National Geographic
Both articles were pay-walled, which means that most of those who see the headlines will not read the articles.
Therein lies an interesting evolution.
Whereas reacting to headlines instead of content used to be a matter of personal laziness (a phenomenon so common that “RTFA” entered Internet vernacular), now those of us unwilling to pay money to dozens of different publishers can only infer the substance of an article from its headline. Since these publishers are all, ultimately, businesses that need revenue to survive, there is incentive to “color” headlines in a fashion that’s most likely to draw new subscribers.
This is the information age equivalent of running 72 point newspaper headlines screaming the latest scandal, outrage, or fear-monger. Instead of enticing passersby to buck up a nickel, a quarter, a dollar, or whatever broadsheets and tabloids go for today, digital headline writers need to write attention-grabbing headlines that’ll prompt some to digitally subscribe.
“Attention” can translate into various forms. I touched upon the most common ones already: outrage and fear. In our highly balkanized information world, however, there’s another. Let’s call it “tribal confirmation” until someone cleverer than me coins a better term. It’s in human nature to want to be proven right, and given how so many public policy issues nowadays devolve into binary opposites, with the nuanced middle shouted down by the absolutists on both sides, disagreements turn into the equivalent of sport: each team wants to “win” by proving the other team was wrong, or stupid, or both.
COVID is no exception to this business, despite the fact that the pandemic is a new phenomenon, with new science, new information, new research, and new conclusions constantly emerging. Unfortunately, news sources are routinely “tilting” this new information in the direction of their previous pronouncements. It’s no surprise, then, that publications that lean more towards heavy government intervention present “forever” fears, despite the very mixed results that heavy government intervention has produced (increasingly, we’re learning that lockdowns have had little effect on the virus’s spread), presumably to validate more heavy government.
“Soundbite culture” traces its origins back more than half a century, to the early days of television and the shifting of people’s news habits from reading to watching. It accelerated with the emergence of the twenty-four hour news cycle that cable news channels evolved, and then the Internet’s explosion shortened our attention spans even further.
Twitter is, arguably, the apotheosis of this evolution, given its immediacy, its brevity constraints, and the disproportionate effect it has on public discourse. While about 1 American in 5 uses Twitter, 80% of tweets come from one tenth of that user base. In short, most of the tweets in the country are written by only 2% of the population, but those 2% have had a colossal impact both on public policy and on public discourse itself. This has certainly not escaped the notice of those who earn their livings publishing words.
That highly-charged language is more effective than dispassionate factuality is not news. But, it used to be that the former served to draw us to the latter. Now, we have, thanks to paywalls, only the former available to us more often than not. The headline is the tale, no matter that it shouldn’t be, no matter that it can’t contain the whole story, and no matter that the pressure to sensationalize inevitably produces misleading impressions. While, knowing this, individuals can try to ignore the impression the headline creates, that’s simply not a realistic expectation across a population.
Instead, we have the news gateways driving public opinion with hot-bite phrases rather than analyses, and doing so in a zero-sum winner/loser environment where your ideological foes being wrong is more important than the best information and conclusions emerging.
The COVID headlines seem oriented toward validating that which has not proven out, i.e. scaring us into continued deference to heavy-handed government despite its errors and failures. While we can blame the writers and their biases, we must also consider that they’re the product of market forces.
Loading ...
It’s back to people believe the first thing they hear. So even if you read the “f’ing” article the headline is going to stick in your head.
and on the theme of lockdowns I wondered what the percentage of anti-maskers are right leaning…
A survey from the Pew Research Center, published in late June, showed that 63% of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents believed that face masks should be worn in public at all times, compared to just 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.
Though I don’t think that tell the whole story, you have to know why they think that way.but 37% of Democrats isn’t a small percentage.
Personally I don’t think my wearing a mask provides me with much protection, but everyone else doing so does. So I wear a mask because it will make others feel safe.
and when I see people without a mask at the store I turn around and seek another aisle.
The mask matter has been drowned out by the absolutists.
On one side, you have the “wear one all the time” maniacs, even though the basic science of masks is about reducing expectorant travel distance from 6 feet to 1-2 feet. There’s no rational reason to wear one walking alone down a quiet street, or riding a bicycle in the suburbs, etc.
On the other side, you have the “since they’re not 100% proof against infection, they’re useless and this is all a plot to break our will and turn us into sheep.” Again, this ignores the science.
There’s a place where they serve as a nontrivial mitigator, i.e. indoor public spaces where you’re likely to intersect paths with strangers. And, even there, they *mitigate* rather than prevent. In terms of burden vs benefit, the scale in those settings tips in favor of wearing one.
So, that survey hinges on the “at all times” qualifier, and it’s the rational response to say no. This by no means indicates that they don’t believe in wearing masks *ever*.