But it's OK for MSM to mislead?

[Fancy]

I see people are rev'ed up to support that kind of journalism where the headlines are OK to mislead one into reading the content. ...

Headlines have been like that for so long - long before the internet I'm thinking. Only now it's called "click bait". I'm not up on all the terminology so I could be wrong.

[Urban Cowboy]

I see people are rev'ed up to support that kind of journalism where the headlines are OK to mislead one into reading the content. ...

Headlines have been like that for so long - long before the internet I'm thinking. Only now it's called "click bait". I'm not up on all the terminology so I could be wrong.

No you are absolutely correct. Media goes out of their way, to dream up story headlines that are as sensationalistic as possible, just to entice you to click on the story. Often times when you do go to read it, it's not at all what the headline implies.

[Jonrox]

Some folks evidently haven’t done their own research on polling procedures, sample sizes, margin of error, and confidence levels. That sample size is sufficient to have a decently accurate result.

Given how so many of you have become experts in science over the last several, it’s quite surprising you don’t understand basic math like this.

[PoplarSoul]

The headline reads:
"Support for vax passports
78% of Canadians support proof-of-vaccine requirement to visit public places: poll"

It says "poll" in the headline.
I know what poll means.
I thought everyone knew.

[DoubleB12]

Why not discuss the topic like everyone else did. It's a poll and showed the number of participants and anyone that looks at these polls should understand the limitations.

I see people are rev'ed up to support that kind of journalism where the headlines are OK to mislead one into reading the content. Some people read the articles, some peruse, some scan, and others skim over it, and all ending with a opinion on what they thought they read. Some just read headlines and move on.

I'm sure that you being a 'pro' in forums would agree that some people will read and think, scan, or peruse, or skim the contents and some stop where they are midstream and start hammering out a response to the little bit they absorbed. I doubt that it changes when people move from a forum post to a Front end news(?) article. IMO - it's people being people.

Again, as I feel that some did not read everything, it's not about the content of the polls, it's about the misleading headline.

Any way, whatever. It's the 'now- generation' and if majority are happy with tabloid current events being re-told snake-oil style, so be it. It never hurts to remind people of the hazards of believing everything in the news - but it's their world now.

~j~

Completely true. What is the current push by the Govt/PHO's being reported in the media right now?? You got it, the attempt to get more people vaxd. Just talk alone, a few weeks/months ago about a vaxport got the vax rate up. Showing short video clips of people in ICU who chose not to vax and the struggle they went through has to a degree made those originally hesitant to get vaxd. Same goes for this headline, and thus if you choose to look at that alone and not actually read the full story, then it's done its job and put that thought into your mind.

So it's really up to each person to actually read the entire story and take it from there. If I could have my choice and create a poll it would be this, and this would be my prediction:

We conducted a poll and asked 250,000 people (in each prov) from BC-QB, and 100,000 from (each prov) NB-NF/LB if they would like to move forward restriction free beginning Nov.1/21....it would only be 25,000 each for NWT/YK/NUN.

BC.....70% yes, 15% no, 15% not sure
AB.....85% yes, 5% no, 10% not sure
SK.....80% yes, 10% no, 10% not sure
MB....70% yes, 15% no, 15% not sure
ON....80% yes, 10% no, 10% not sure
QB....55% yes, 20% no, 10% not sure, 15% did not participate since poll was conducted in English..
NB....55% yes, 30% no, 15% not sure
PEI...60% yes, 20% no, 10% not sure, 10% to busy harvesting spuds
NS....65% yes, 15% no, 10% not sure, 10% have gone fishing
NF/LB..65% same as NS
NWT...80%, other 20% were too cold
NUN...80%, as above
YK....80%, as above

WE WILL BE OKAY......Open er' up!!

[Jim Dixon]

I see people are rev'ed up to support that kind of journalism where the headlines are OK to mislead one into reading the content. ...

Headlines have been like that for so long - long before the internet I'm thinking. Only now it's called "click bait". I'm not up on all the terminology so I could be wrong.

Click-bait is, until someone decides otherwise, a page that will suggest a story with headline such as "He asked her to marry him, but answer went viral" and show a nice gal and guy at a park with a paragraph with a ad and "NEXT" and a pic and paragraph and ad, and "NEXT" and on it goes until the end, there may be a the final "viral" answer. They use very suggestive headlines - learned form today's so-called news stories.

J

[Jim Dixon]

I gather from the responses dictating what is and isn't fair reporting practices prefer the tabloid-style of headlines.

Like the news industry says, "If it bleeds it leads and follow up with ducks and kids" also holds true for headlining a otherwise boring tale of opinion polls.

A fair, unbiased headline would have read:

~78% of 1,500 Canadians polled support proof-of-vaccine requirement to visit public places~ NOT the misleading "78% of Canadians..."

and it's shorter, honest, and anyone reading the headline knows from the get-go how many were polled - and may remember 1,500. Come on - almost everyone glances through the headlines and skims over the story and moves on.

I spent a measly 2.5 years employed in Canada's largest advertising agency. One thing I learned was that Polls were done to A-learn from public opinion, or B-teach the public an opinion. Same is used in headlines.

The News Medium knows what they are doing, have a reason behind almost every word, and placing ":poll" at the end was important too. Normally, the editor decides on the headline, not the person that wrote it. I said usually. Times have changed - maybe a A.I. does it for some news outlets.

Remember, it's called news "Medium" because it is very Rare that it is ever Well-done. We are losing our Mediums to new government laws encroaching on our rights to have a opinion. It includes the press. IMO. The Media needs to get out there and defend itself, and good start would be dropping the "influencer's" roll and just be honest and set a example.

As well, the placing of articles on news outlets webs site can influence people's opinions too.
This OP about headlines designed to examine and discuss or debate misleading headlines verses others misleading information (Facebook, Twitter, ad nauseum) is under Board/General Interest/Health. Well, maybe it's healthy not to trust everything to headlines, and when reading a 'story', to eliminate author's personal or biased input. Too much in headlines IMO - keep IMO in mind - dress headlines in teen drama such as one I remember a person reporting live on TV about a small dump-truck size rock slide onto the Sea-Sky. The reporter leaned towards the camera, and in an excited state said.. "Yes (anchorperson), ...rocks the size of boulders came crashing down..."

As I said earlier, those that approve of MSM using slight of tongue tactics to tip opinions can have it. It seems that today, dishonesty is the better policy. And just because it has happened before doesn't make it OK.

Just my opinion is all it is so please ease up with the insults. Learn to be "tolerant" - it's a old fad that came and went, but needs revival now and then. IMO.

~j~

[my5cents]

A lot of hot air about MSM "misleading". Never let facts or the truth get in the way of a good complaint.

The sub headline was, perhaps a bit misleading as so many headlines are.

"Support for vax passports"
"78% of Canadians support proof-of-vaccine reequipment to visit public places: poll"

Misleading if a reader was so naïve to take "78% of Canadians" to mean that 100% of all Canadians were polled and the result was 78%.

There is already a topic "Inaccurate sensationalized headlines" viewtopic.php?f=26&t=89135

A whole lot about nothing.

[DoubleB12]

I gather from the responses dictating what is and isn't fair reporting practices prefer the tabloid-style of headlines.

Like the news industry says, "If it bleeds it leads and follow up with ducks and kids" also holds true for headlining a otherwise boring tale of opinion polls.

A fair, unbiased headline would have read:

~78% of 1,500 Canadians polled support proof-of-vaccine requirement to visit public places~ NOT the misleading "78% of Canadians..."

and it's shorter, honest, and anyone reading the headline knows from the get-go how many were polled - and may remember 1,500. Come on - almost everyone glances through the headlines and skims over the story and moves on.

I spent a measly 2.5 years employed in Canada's largest advertising agency. One thing I learned was that Polls were done to A-learn from public opinion, or B-teach the public an opinion. Same is used in headlines.

The News Medium knows what they are doing, have a reason behind almost every word, and placing ":poll" at the end was important too. Normally, the editor decides on the headline, not the person that wrote it. I said usually. Times have changed - maybe a A.I. does it for some news outlets.

Remember, it's called news "Medium" because it is very Rare that it is ever Well-done. We are losing our Mediums to new government laws encroaching on our rights to have a opinion. It includes the press. IMO. The Media needs to get out there and defend itself, and good start would be dropping the "influencer's" roll and just be honest and set a example.

As well, the placing of articles on news outlets webs site can influence people's opinions too.
This OP about headlines designed to examine and discuss or debate misleading headlines verses others misleading information (Facebook, Twitter, ad nauseum) is under Board/General Interest/Health. Well, maybe it's healthy not to trust everything to headlines, and when reading a 'story', to eliminate author's personal or biased input. Too much in headlines IMO - keep IMO in mind - dress headlines in teen drama such as one I remember a person reporting live on TV about a small dump-truck size rock slide onto the Sea-Sky. The reporter leaned towards the camera, and in an excited state said.. "Yes (anchorperson), ...rocks the size of boulders came crashing down..."

As I said earlier, those that approve of MSM using slight of tongue tactics to tip opinions can have it. It seems that today, dishonesty is the better policy. And just because it has happened before doesn't make it OK.

Just my opinion is all it is so please ease up with the insults. Learn to be "tolerant" - it's a old fad that came and went, but needs revival now and then. IMO.

~j~

[DoubleB12]

A lot of hot air about MSM "misleading". Never let facts or the truth get in the way of a good complaint.

The sub headline was, perhaps a bit misleading as so many headlines are.

"Support for vax passports"
"78% of Canadians support proof-of-vaccine reequipment to visit public places: poll"

Misleading if a reader was so naïve to take "78% of Canadians" to mean that 100% of all Canadians were polled and the result was 78%.

There is already a topic "Inaccurate sensationalized headlines" viewtopic.php?f=26&t=89135

A whole lot about nothing.

Obviously there is no poll that can state an entire population has been asked for their opinion. But as J.Dixon said, it's highly likely that most people see the headline and take it as such w/o the thought of actually reading it...unless that is your thing!! It is misleading kind of like how a few years ago before Trump won CNN had several polls leading up to the election all showing that Clinton was ahead by as much as 20%. Even on election night, CNN prematurely had Clinton elected in 7 states that she ended up losing by a fairly wide margin. That's just how the media works....you take it or leave it!!

[my5cents]

Obviously there is no poll that can state an entire population has been asked for their opinion. But as J.Dixon said, it's highly likely that most people see the headline and take it as such w/o the thought of actually reading it...unless that is your thing!! It is misleading kind of like how a few years ago before Trump won CNN had several polls leading up to the election all showing that Clinton was ahead by as much as 20%. Even on election night, CNN prematurely had Clinton elected in 7 states that she ended up losing by a fairly wide margin. That's just how the media works....you take it or leave it!!

"it's highly likely that most people see the headline and take it as such w/o the thought of actually reading it", ?

"take it as such" ??? What, that the entire country of Canada was polled ?

I think you'd find that headlines just direct people to stories. Some are intentionally misleading to generate interest in reading the stories, especially the old print media. (generate sales at the news stand)

Personally, I don't get my news from the headline, and I don't know many who do. I read the story, that's where, most times the ins and outs of the headline come clear in the full story.

Yes, there are misleading headlines, sometimes out of ignorance sometimes to generate readership.

Headline: "Robbery in Summerland". One reads the story to find that the reporter mis-described an overnight burglary (a break and entry while property is unattended) as a robbery (theft with violence or threat of violence). The reporter did so either in an attempt to generate interest in the story or out of ignorance.

As for elections, unfortunately the ballots are counted and numbers released as they come in. In my experience in all elections by all sorts of reporting media, as ballots are counted the numbers and thus the leaders change from time to time. That's just how elections work, take it or leave it.

[DoubleB12]

"take it as such" ??? What, that the entire country of Canada was polled ?

You take as such, simply meaning another poll with a "certain headline" to, as you said generate interest. Some will read it and most probably wont. With so much misinterpretation of media nowadays.....you take it as such and slough it off as just another poll. Most people know and realize that polls really dont represent the masses, but only a very small portion of society!!

[my5cents]

"take it as such" ??? What, that the entire country of Canada was polled ?

You take as such, simply meaning another poll with a "certain headline" to, as you said generate interest. Some will read it and most probably wont. With so much misinterpretation of media nowadays.....you take it as such and slough it off as just another poll. Most people know and realize that polls really dont represent the masses, but only a very small portion of society!!

What's misleading then ? The headline indicates 78% in Canada are for vax passports. The polling company explained the source of the numbers, nobody is misleading anyone.

Polling companies count on the reliability of their polls, that's how they get further business. If a polling company got a list of card carrying Liberals and polled 5000 of them and then announced that 98% of Canadian support Trudeau, instead of "98% of Liberals polled support Canadians" they wouldn't be in the business long.

This, as I said before is much ado about nothing.

[alanjh595]

YouTube blocks all anti-vaccine content

[alanjh595]