Today we play this game on social media, and what is worse about it; we play it with so-called “news” links. Someone will post a link with a headline, and for the most part, we react and post comments based upon what the headline says, not what the article the headline refers, or is linked to.
And if we do go to the link, most times we scan it to get the gist of what it is about, or worse still, look for key words or phrases hoping to find something that will bolster our view or opinion on the subject.
This past week, someone posted an article about a potential presidential candidate, as it happens this possible candidate is someone I have been watching for some length of time. The headline said this person made a statement that betrayed the causes most of supporters would deem sacred. And it quoted some of his statement in the headline. I clicked the link, finding most of it opinion and little as to substance. But the article did have another link straight to the source and the candidate’s webpage. There I found hot link to the question asked and the person’s response. Context is important, and when read or listened to within the context of the event; no such betrayal to his supporters took place.
Another posted a picture of a kid with a gun, the headline saying a 5 year old had shot and killed his younger brother. Click the link, and the article was not about any such a tragedy; it was an anti-gun article start to finish. But in reading the comments posted, not one commenter read the article.
I have a friend who posts things about the Santa Susana Nuclear Faculty accident in 1959 believing it is still dangerous to health. The links are full of words and phrases, such as, substantial amounts of radiation, or 200 times more than originally thought, and Levels thought to be dangerous. None of the links given are peer reviewed studies. And none of the readings stated are in any context. And pointing out science, in rebuttal is asking to be berated at best.
Several years ago, the local paper ran a multiple page story, detailing global warming was responsible for the melting glaciers at Glacier National Park in Northwest Montana. The article as laced with, words such as, assumed, thought, believed, seems, may, maybe, might, could and could have. Not one sited peer review study. The interesting thing about the article was the next to last paragraph, where the writer stated that it was agreed, the average rise in temperature of less than 2 degrees was not enough to account the loss of ice. The Earth wobbles as it spins and procession caused the Jet Stream to move enough, that it changed the rain and snow fall averages enough that there is less snow to make up for the melting taking place.
We have become Drive By targets of the Drive By Media, too lazy to read anything but the headlines, or worse too lazy to read what is or is not in the article. We then compound the laziness, by blindly reposting these opinions as news on our social media pages.