If nothing else, this is a perfect example of how the media operates. It's a very interesting news entry, to be sure, but when I saw that headline, I thought "from now on, I'm chugging water 24/7". Then I read the article. Fluff, fluff, fluff, and BAM, last non-quote paragraph. A description of the actual experiment in question. The conclusion reached by the study wasn't that people make better decisions while thinking about peeing, it's that people who might need to go to the bathroom will on average hold out for a benefit in the long run.
In essence, the article starts from super general and alluring and very sensationalist ("YOU WILL MAKE BETTER DECISIONS IF YOU NEED TO USE THE LITTLE BOY/GIRL'S ROOM") and fluffs its way through the entire piece, until it finally cites the only maybe-factual proof they have of it, finally being honest...
...at the end of the article.
Up until that point, they were just throwing all the assumptions and generalities they had that could possibly interest the reader.
Like Rush Limbaugh himself admitted, most of what is said by himself (and the media) isn't said to inform the people, it's to draw in the crowds, the interest, and the advertising profits.
Related.
2 comments:
Interesting post. I knew attention grabbers were mandatory but always thought that reporters in general had the sense to use them in moderation.
Guess I was wrong.
Comic made me lol
Post a Comment