(no subject)
24/4/12 08:12![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
musicpsych.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo I want to begin by saying that I don't wish to discuss the question posed by the headline of this article, "Are men stupid?" (http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/23/opinion/ghitis-men-stupid/). This intellectually stirring headline seems designed mainly to elicit page clicks and comments. As of this writing, the article has gotten almost 5800 comments (and counting) since it was posted - and I believe it was published Monday. To use Internet lingo, the author seems like a troll.
However, this article reminded me of a few different thoughts I've had when it comes to political stories covered by the media.
One thing we're going to see a lot of in the coming months are stories that stay in the news cycle for one day or for a limited number of days, stories that might elicit a strong reaction at the time but ultimately fall by the wayside. Quick, do you still care about Mitt Romney's line about the $10,000 bet he wanted to make during one of the Republican debates? I remember when that was said a few months ago (was it December?), and for a week or so, it seemed as though all media outlets shared their opinions on it. But does it really matter in the long run? Are you personally going to base your vote on that comment, or will it even factor into the equation which will determine your vote? Was it worth all of the attention it received?
In my opinion, no. There's almost a meme-like quality to stories like this, and pretty soon, they'll be as old as that Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. (I also don't wish to discuss whether or not he was in fact "ridiculously photogenic".) I've subscribed to some political podcasts in the past few months, and I've occasionally gotten behind. As I've gotten caught up, it's been surprising to see how irrelevant some of the discussions seem, even if the discussions are just a few weeks old. These were issues that were said to be important at the time the podcasts were made, and I remembered reading articles about them at the time, but by the time I listened to the podcasts, they had grown stale.
One key part of any article is its headline. It's easy to assume that the headline will describe the article, but that's not how it works. A headline exists to get you to read the story. It's like the saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover." Don't judge an article based on its headline. With this article in particular, the author doesn't talk about how all men are stupid, as the headline might suggest. She talks about how politically powerful men are arrogant and make bad decisions, and concludes that some men are stupid. (Q: "Are men stupid?" A: "Some men are stupid.")
Misleading headlines are dangerous in two ways. The first is that some people don't read much beyond the headlines. Even in this article, many of the comments - at least that I've seen - are simply about the headline, whether men are or aren't stupid. They don't get into the details that the author discusses. Some people might read headlines and nothing beyond that; they might take the headlines as fact, even if the headline has been juiced up to try to elicit clicks. (And some websites get pretty bad with their headlines - such as Huffington Post.)
The second way headlines are dangerous is that they potentially affect how you read the article. Men who read that headline might start reading the article on the defensive. It's like what I think has been brought up in this community before, about how stores prime you when you walk in to get you to buy more things. Headlines might prime you to feel a certain way or take a certain position, and it might affect how you read what the article actually says.
With that said, for all the attention these stories get, they may not matter much after all. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us already know who we're going to vote for in the fall, and virtually nothing that will happen between now and then will change that. It's similar to how, going in, you likely already have a position on the "Are men stupid?" debate, and any amount of expert analysis isn't going to change things. You may even feel inclined to weigh in on the topic. Does it matter, though? Are questions like that even worth discussing? Will discussions about questions like that actually go anywhere?
And so, when we see an article like this, is this irresponsible on the part of the media, or are they just doing their job? Is it ethical for them to troll for comments and/or clicks, all in the name of business? You could argue that it's okay because the odds are good that the story will only be big for a day or two and won't affect the grand scheme of things. However, as a reader, it seems like a game that they are playing, and after so many similar stories, it's hard not to feel used and/or manipulated.
However, this article reminded me of a few different thoughts I've had when it comes to political stories covered by the media.
One thing we're going to see a lot of in the coming months are stories that stay in the news cycle for one day or for a limited number of days, stories that might elicit a strong reaction at the time but ultimately fall by the wayside. Quick, do you still care about Mitt Romney's line about the $10,000 bet he wanted to make during one of the Republican debates? I remember when that was said a few months ago (was it December?), and for a week or so, it seemed as though all media outlets shared their opinions on it. But does it really matter in the long run? Are you personally going to base your vote on that comment, or will it even factor into the equation which will determine your vote? Was it worth all of the attention it received?
In my opinion, no. There's almost a meme-like quality to stories like this, and pretty soon, they'll be as old as that Ridiculously Photogenic Guy. (I also don't wish to discuss whether or not he was in fact "ridiculously photogenic".) I've subscribed to some political podcasts in the past few months, and I've occasionally gotten behind. As I've gotten caught up, it's been surprising to see how irrelevant some of the discussions seem, even if the discussions are just a few weeks old. These were issues that were said to be important at the time the podcasts were made, and I remembered reading articles about them at the time, but by the time I listened to the podcasts, they had grown stale.
One key part of any article is its headline. It's easy to assume that the headline will describe the article, but that's not how it works. A headline exists to get you to read the story. It's like the saying, "Don't judge a book by its cover." Don't judge an article based on its headline. With this article in particular, the author doesn't talk about how all men are stupid, as the headline might suggest. She talks about how politically powerful men are arrogant and make bad decisions, and concludes that some men are stupid. (Q: "Are men stupid?" A: "Some men are stupid.")
Misleading headlines are dangerous in two ways. The first is that some people don't read much beyond the headlines. Even in this article, many of the comments - at least that I've seen - are simply about the headline, whether men are or aren't stupid. They don't get into the details that the author discusses. Some people might read headlines and nothing beyond that; they might take the headlines as fact, even if the headline has been juiced up to try to elicit clicks. (And some websites get pretty bad with their headlines - such as Huffington Post.)
The second way headlines are dangerous is that they potentially affect how you read the article. Men who read that headline might start reading the article on the defensive. It's like what I think has been brought up in this community before, about how stores prime you when you walk in to get you to buy more things. Headlines might prime you to feel a certain way or take a certain position, and it might affect how you read what the article actually says.
With that said, for all the attention these stories get, they may not matter much after all. I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us already know who we're going to vote for in the fall, and virtually nothing that will happen between now and then will change that. It's similar to how, going in, you likely already have a position on the "Are men stupid?" debate, and any amount of expert analysis isn't going to change things. You may even feel inclined to weigh in on the topic. Does it matter, though? Are questions like that even worth discussing? Will discussions about questions like that actually go anywhere?
And so, when we see an article like this, is this irresponsible on the part of the media, or are they just doing their job? Is it ethical for them to troll for comments and/or clicks, all in the name of business? You could argue that it's okay because the odds are good that the story will only be big for a day or two and won't affect the grand scheme of things. However, as a reader, it seems like a game that they are playing, and after so many similar stories, it's hard not to feel used and/or manipulated.
(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 13:14 (UTC)Ok. Well, I guess I didn't need to learn that particular tid-bit of wisdom, but I guess someone somewhere did.
(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 13:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 13:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:04 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 13:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:03 (UTC)DOHOHOHOHOHO
Date: 24/4/12 15:08 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 17:52 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 17:54 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 14:00 (UTC)People are lazy and the average person will not seek out information so we're stuck with it. Why work at forming an opinion when it's so much easier just to have one?
(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 14:12 (UTC)I await senescence joyously as I will hopefully no longer be under the cosh of my gender-induced biological imperative to have sex with every woman still breathing.
And for once I disagree with meus, as I think it's not about power, or thinking one can get away with it: it's just about opportunity. Unfortunately for some, power presents opportunity. Thankfully SWMBO, my age, lack of attractiveness, and the offspring, between them all limit my opportunities to screw up in this fashion to something approaching zero.
However, I don't think that every man is under the same compulsion. I'm sure that there are a few decent ones around. Out of three-and-a-half-billion odd males on the planet there must be a couple of thousand who aren't like me and who don't imagine taking every woman they see to bed: even if, in my case, only for a microsecond before reality kicks in.
I suppose sense is knowing that you are a
badstupid man, and trying to limit the damage you do with yourbadnessstupidity.(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 14:55 (UTC)We come from monkeys, swinging in the trees,
A little bit of money inside you and me.
Seriously, we have these urges and thoughts (and I insist that there is nothing wrong with urges and thoughts) because we're primates with very strongly wired biology. We can choose not to act on such urges and thoughts (and in terms, of, say, objectifying the opposite sex, choose to moderate our thoughts) because we're also evolved to be self-aware and capable of self-reflection. It's just that our monkey brains are still pretty powerful, and it seems that once we get just a little bit of power, a sense of immortality or untouchability, it goes MAD and just starts flinging poo everywhere.
Toss in the old idea of the Monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html), and you can see why people think they'd never get caught. Hell, all those people who might "catch" you aren't even people. THEY DON'T ACTUALLY EXIST.
--
Re: your points about headlines. It's true, and that above mentioned National Geographic article is such a great example of that. I see it all the time on the evening news, usually before going to commercial. They make an upcoming story out to be exciting and important (to keep you tuned in) and then it turns out to be nothing.
Surprisingly, the article you linked: "Are Men Stupid" isn't quite as guilty of that. I mean, yes, it's an attention grabbing headline, and likely there for the controversy, but it does fit the content of the article, at least to an extent. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 03:43 (UTC)That's a fair point, about the headline. Though it's not descriptive enough for me. I mean, I realize that there's a limit to how long a headline can be. But the article itself is so narrow about the kind of men being discussed. It doesn't cite the percentage of all men who are caught cheating on their spouses. It doesn't talk about men's IQs, about stupid decisions men make, even anything general about men. It would have been more accurate to say "Are male politicians stupid?" or even something like "Sex, power and arrogance."
And it seems like a shame because while it mentions arrogance of powerful men, it doesn't really discuss it beyond providing examples. Instead, it turns what could have been an interesting topic into a battle of the sexes. Getting into why these men made those decisions, that would be interesting (at least to me). Even talking more about how the world is changing, that this type of behavior may have been more acceptable (or at least less exposed) would be interesting. Kind of, the "new rules" for men, and why men might have a hard time changing. Granted, it's just an op-ed, and it probably couldn't have done those topics justice. But I think that would have been better than what was published.
(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:01 (UTC)Now that I have your attention...
The thing that struck me about the article is that it fails to consider the Puritanical aspect of attacks on people who fail to fit the mold of "right" conduct. The more severe stupidity was not Clinton's seduction by Lewinsky, but the American seduction by Kenneth Starr's witch trial. When we compare Clinton and Bush, the seduction by an intern in the former case was not nearly as detrimental as the seduction by an oil field in the latter case.
(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 03:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 16:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:12 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 06:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 15:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 01:34 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 20:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 16:46 (UTC)Yes men are stupid.
Women are also stupid but in different ways.
(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 18:00 (UTC)Misleading headlines are frustrating, but like you said - they work. AOL news has to be one of the worst at this. Every day "legendary actor dies", or "world renowned music group announces they are breaking up/getting back together", and every day my dumb ass clicks on it to find out who...
(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 01:30 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 24/4/12 18:59 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 25/4/12 01:24 (UTC)