They’re quoting what he said to Congress. That’s newsworthy.
Admitting that the article debunks Zuckerberg, your complaint seems to be that the rebuttal wasn’t a part of the headline? That’s not how headlines work…
But is it headline worthy? Yes my issue is with the headline. Why not simply make the headline “Zuckerberg testifies to Congress”? It’s factual, demonstrably true, and accurate. Is it responsible to publish a known lie as a headline simply for its salacious and attention grabbing nature. As well as pandering to confirmation bias?
The article may very well be fine. But the downvotes for yellow journalistic practices I think are not undeserved.
Why not simply make the headline “Zuckerberg testifies to Congress”?
Because that would be a fabrication. Zuckerberg wasn’t testifying to Congress, this was a written statement to a Congressional committee. That detail notwithstanding, the newsworthy portion of the story isn’t that he talked to Congress, the newsworthy part is what he materially said to Congress.
Of course, your complaint is pretty transparently that this article isn’t biased the same way you are, and I’m not surprised that you don’t actually know what the article says when you complain that it isn’t accurate, or that you are recommending lies to replace this perfectly factual headline, because as you said, that’s what I should expect from the Demographics here on Lemmy (left-wing children still figuring out how politics and journalism actually work).
Okay, then Zuckerberg’s Congressional statement then. It’s not a significant change.
Nah, as I said. The article is fine. It’s literally the headline that’s the issue. Literally. Try a different strawman.
This isn’t just a VOA thing or anything. But a far too common point of contention with all modern media. It’s irresponsible and tabloid. For all the people who see the headline, but don’t read the article or didn’t already know it to be a misrepresentation/lie. Arguably most people. The headline isn’t just uninformative. But misinformative. And it’s all over. Got nothing to do with whether a publication leans to any one group or another. I down vote shitty headlines I see like this being posted by nominally left leaning groups or right.
And it’s sad, because there can still be good journalism going on under all the manipulative editorialization.
They’re quoting what he said to Congress. That’s newsworthy.
Admitting that the article debunks Zuckerberg, your complaint seems to be that the rebuttal wasn’t a part of the headline? That’s not how headlines work…
But is it headline worthy? Yes my issue is with the headline. Why not simply make the headline “Zuckerberg testifies to Congress”? It’s factual, demonstrably true, and accurate. Is it responsible to publish a known lie as a headline simply for its salacious and attention grabbing nature. As well as pandering to confirmation bias?
The article may very well be fine. But the downvotes for yellow journalistic practices I think are not undeserved.
Because that would be a fabrication. Zuckerberg wasn’t testifying to Congress, this was a written statement to a Congressional committee. That detail notwithstanding, the newsworthy portion of the story isn’t that he talked to Congress, the newsworthy part is what he materially said to Congress.
Of course, your complaint is pretty transparently that this article isn’t biased the same way you are, and I’m not surprised that you don’t actually know what the article says when you complain that it isn’t accurate, or that you are recommending lies to replace this perfectly factual headline, because as you said, that’s what I should expect from the Demographics here on Lemmy (left-wing children still figuring out how politics and journalism actually work).
Okay, then Zuckerberg’s Congressional statement then. It’s not a significant change.
Nah, as I said. The article is fine. It’s literally the headline that’s the issue. Literally. Try a different strawman.
This isn’t just a VOA thing or anything. But a far too common point of contention with all modern media. It’s irresponsible and tabloid. For all the people who see the headline, but don’t read the article or didn’t already know it to be a misrepresentation/lie. Arguably most people. The headline isn’t just uninformative. But misinformative. And it’s all over. Got nothing to do with whether a publication leans to any one group or another. I down vote shitty headlines I see like this being posted by nominally left leaning groups or right.
And it’s sad, because there can still be good journalism going on under all the manipulative editorialization.