Quote (thesnipa @ 31 Oct 2019 18:59)
The headline still reads like Trump was physically there to me, rather than it being a campaign ad. it's not factually incorrect, but it's designed to make you click. i consider anything that's worded a way to get you to click to be a bit of "fake news".
but overall i'm not concerned with quarantining that narrative, because i think fake news is a real problem in America. from the right, left, and everything inbetween. yahoo specifically has awful journalistic standard, not their fault entirely. you dont go to mcdonalds for a grade A steak. but overall they are really fucking bad. constantly posting articles with thumbnails of a different person, just so you go "wait the headline says George Clooney, but that's Brad Pitt". then u click it and brad pitt's nowhere to be seen. they also like to put out headlines like "you wont believe what ____ said", then you click it and they said literally nothing. worse of all the "when will The Witcher (for example) be released on Netflix?" headline, then 4 paragraphs that say "late 2019, we dont actually know at all".
i'll take every chance to rag on yahoo, while still reading it daily, even when it's my bad.
i'm not very familiar with yahoo 'news' to be honest, maybe they are generally really shitty and deserve criticism for it, but i honestly don't find this particular headline misleading at all. it contains the important information, and from my perspective goes out of its way to PREVENT a false interpretation: it clearly states "again at nationals park" and then even goes one step further by specifying "EVEN THOUGH game was in houston" - literally the only way to characterise this as 'misleading' is to simply not read it properly. so if that is your standard, you could label literally everything as 'a bit of fake news'.
actual fake news deserve to be called out, i totally agree - but we both know WHO weaponised this term, who tends to use it, and in what context. the way it is currently used is not to objectively and fairly point out instances of intentionally misleading or carelessly sloppy reporting, but almost exclusively to discredit outlets that dare to criticise trump. it's used to misrepresent honest mistakes or singular instances of bad reporting as representative and characteristic of all their reporting - and in that context i think it's not helpful to perpetuate the 'fake news' narrative just because you were too distracted to read a headline properly.