Yeah those are are still pretty sensationalist, and that’s with leaving out the bulk of the content. How do you divulge the content without sounding like satire? Anyone can make a crazy story sound sane by just not telling the crazy parts. You gotta tell the crazy parts too.
A foreign leader has blackmail in the US President, that’s sensational no matter how you slice it.
And you ignored the important part. How do you word reporting the content of the reported photos? How do you say that the alleged photo is of the president blowing someone without sounding like satire?
I don’t think anything about the situation is it all satire. It doesn’t feel like satire. It does not seem extreme. It seems like shit that just happens on a daily basis. One person has dirt on another person.
What you keep forgetting is that this is being delivered in such a way to cause an extreme reaction. Trump sucks Bubba is quite the headline.
What we are really talking about is that most people prefer the extreme headline, and that’s why those extreme headlines exist. Would you click on An article that had the headline that I created—or would you click on an article that said Trump accused of sucking Bill Clinton’s dick?
I think we both know the answer: we both would definitely click on that extreme headline.
I think you’re confused. You’re assuming that because the headline is sensational, the cause is sensationalism.
Simple question: how do you convey all of the information “email suggests Putin has photos of Trump blowing someone”? You keep diverting. Answer the question.
Oh I see, how do I convey all the information in an entire article within one headline because you don’t want to read the article you just want to read the headline… Well, I don’t know how to help you. If you don’t know how to read or don’t want to read, that’s on you. I will say, that really does explain a lot about the United States. I hope you have the day you voted for
No, you don’t see. That wasn’t what anyone said, you’re just missing the point.
Stop focusing on headlines. How do you communicate the totality of the facts? Headline, article, wherever. It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point.
No. You’re focused on sensationalist headlines, the point is that no matter how you word the headline, the facts of reality being reported are objectively sensational. Even with the most sober and neutral tone, the things that are happening are so ridiculous they read as satire.
Yeah those are are still pretty sensationalist, and that’s with leaving out the bulk of the content. How do you divulge the content without sounding like satire? Anyone can make a crazy story sound sane by just not telling the crazy parts. You gotta tell the crazy parts too.
I believe those are very bland headlines. If you think those are sensational, then I think the problem is not the headline.
A foreign leader has blackmail in the US President, that’s sensational no matter how you slice it.
And you ignored the important part. How do you word reporting the content of the reported photos? How do you say that the alleged photo is of the president blowing someone without sounding like satire?
I don’t think anything about the situation is it all satire. It doesn’t feel like satire. It does not seem extreme. It seems like shit that just happens on a daily basis. One person has dirt on another person.
What you keep forgetting is that this is being delivered in such a way to cause an extreme reaction. Trump sucks Bubba is quite the headline.
What we are really talking about is that most people prefer the extreme headline, and that’s why those extreme headlines exist. Would you click on An article that had the headline that I created—or would you click on an article that said Trump accused of sucking Bill Clinton’s dick?
I think we both know the answer: we both would definitely click on that extreme headline.
I think you’re confused. You’re assuming that because the headline is sensational, the cause is sensationalism.
Simple question: how do you convey all of the information “email suggests Putin has photos of Trump blowing someone”? You keep diverting. Answer the question.
Oh I see, how do I convey all the information in an entire article within one headline because you don’t want to read the article you just want to read the headline… Well, I don’t know how to help you. If you don’t know how to read or don’t want to read, that’s on you. I will say, that really does explain a lot about the United States. I hope you have the day you voted for
No, you don’t see. That wasn’t what anyone said, you’re just missing the point.
Stop focusing on headlines. How do you communicate the totality of the facts? Headline, article, wherever. It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point.
I feel you’re intentionally ignoring the point.
No. You’re focused on sensationalist headlines, the point is that no matter how you word the headline, the facts of reality being reported are objectively sensational. Even with the most sober and neutral tone, the things that are happening are so ridiculous they read as satire.