I get this but I’m a little tired of the “let me screenshot this headline bc it angers me, no I won’t read the piece” mindset.
It’s situational — there are bad headlines! But it must drive NYT nuts, they get nonstop Screenshot Fury.
It’s situational — there are bad headlines! But it must drive NYT nuts, they get nonstop Screenshot Fury.
Reposted from
Derrell Durrett
I think a plausible defense for Kahn here is that he demands readers be more than "casual" consumers of the news.
It's not a smart take, IMO, but it's defensible: We don't write for you to skim it, we write for you to *read* it.
It's not smart because it calls your readers dumb or lazy.
It's not a smart take, IMO, but it's defensible: We don't write for you to skim it, we write for you to *read* it.
It's not smart because it calls your readers dumb or lazy.
Comments
"That headline is taken out of context. You need to read all the shit I posted behind the paywall." It's a self-indictment when you're holding your own alibi hostage.
The only other conclusion is that the NYTimes' "leaders" *like* doing the stupid things they're doing, like piss-poor headlines constantly.
You can debate their motivations.
But they don't care to fix it.
Their economics coverage continually posts bad headlines. It's a choice!