I challenge you to read this whole column. How many significant news stories can you name this past week? This past week there have been a dozen stories that have gained and lost popular attention. With Trump’s tweets and executive orders, Google banning publishers of so-called “fake news,” Press Secretary Sean Spicer lying multiple times during a press briefing and the continuing crisis in Flint, Mich. the amount of news is stifling. I would be surprised if many of these stories are still being discussed when this column is published. According to some studies, we have a hard time sustaining a discussion in part because we too easily give into our tendency to not read past headlines that obscure more than they inform.
Headlines are inherently non-inclusive. They are useful for conveying a story in the shortest and broadest sense, but that still leaves out important elements. For example, a recent headline read “'Complete chaos,' 1,000 calls after Trump immigrant ban hits.” This headline tells you nothing of the immigration ban or who it affects. It also doesn’t make clear who made or received the 1,000 calls. From the headline readers could easily assume the calls could went to the White House rather than where they actually went: the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. This is made apparent in the first line of the article, but it is unsafe to assume people even read the article. Sometimes the headlines are plain wrong, with no guarantees that the someone will check again later when it is corrected.
The transient focus that many people give to news creates what I call a “band-aid outlook.” Instead of giving sustained thought on any particular message, people constantly jump from news story to news story. This gives people just enough time to patch the news into a preset view of the world before quickly moving on to a new story. A person would have to commit some serious time and effort to substantially challenge that initial opinion. This extraordinary effort, which is unreasonable to expect of someone, is what is currently required if people are going to be informed about the facts. The net result is that political bubbles get strengthened by news instead of challenged.
Only reading interesting stories is problematic because it buries boring but important stories. News about race relations is interesting to many people and will create a discussion. The Cavalier Daily article on the City Council’s inability to pass a resolution to remove a symbolically controversial Robert E. Lee statue has received a significant number of comments online. A Cavalier Daily editorial asking the for increased transparency in the process of raising college tuition, a process that affects every University student, has gotten zero comments. I do not intend to devalue the conversation around race relations and Confederate symbolism, but it is clear that people have preferences for interesting stories before impactful ones.
The media bears some responsibility when it comes to headlines being the primary source of news for many. Headlines give the feeling that a reader already has an understanding of the story without having to read it. This misplaced understanding is one the main reasons people feel comfortable browsing headlines. The media has to strive to make headlines raise questions in the minds of readers as much as they inform.
The solution for the problem is easy in principle: read. I can understand that it is easier, more comfortable and much more enjoyable to continue enjoying media passively — many of us are guilty of scrolling through countless news article on our Facebook feeds while reading only a few. As harmless as this may seem, it only strengthens the political divisions already rampant in our country by spreading misinformation. Hold yourself, and others, accountable — read past the headline.
Robert Doyle is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at rhd9qa@virginia.edu.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Big donors are dominating the Board of Visitors
By Ryan Williams | YesterdaySuch appointments being dictated by connections and donations creates a Board composed of big donors instead of members passionate about University goals.
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 6 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
