“What we learned” and “What we know so far” (click bait!)
If you’ve been paying attention over the past few years – there has been a noticeable rise in headlines that include some iteration of the following phrases: “What we learned,” and “what we know so far.
And as far as we’re concerned, this is both click-bait – as well as psychological trickery.
“What we learned” is usually for some “breaking news” kind of story
Most often – these headlines are related to a form of “breaking news” type story or event.
Someone died. A fire or accident. A shooting. A scandal. Those kinds of nuggets.
Most of the time – these news stories just scan social media networks – and use embedded tweets as the result of their “research.”
In a way, they’re “curating” some kind of summary of the buzz.
Plays into human curiosity – and leads you to believe “new” information is available
Then, the so-called “reporters” publish an “updated” story with some kind of additional information related to whatever the subject matter is.
Most people can’t wait to read what new information (or statements, quotes, photos) were “discovered.”
But that phrase is downright annoying.
One, because it makes the reporting venue sound as if they’ve literally uncovered the data or information themselves – when most if not all was already in public domain, and they’re just parroting it.
Two, it sounds “authoritative” in some manner. But almost always it is not. Not investigative journalism whatsoever. No new things were truly uncovered. Just gossiping and other shit some nosy people just came across.
Or another way to look at it is some kids who are “good at” searching twitter or other moronic social media.
Don’t know – just rubs us the wrong way. One big circle-jerk.
We say – avoid news!
If you know what’s best for you (besides finding out “what they know so far..”) you should read Rolf Dobelli’s AVOID NEWS essay.
Everyone that follows THAT timeless collection of advice would be much better off!