If you don't read articles - why?

[Sympthsical]

I’ve taken a step back from politics, but I’ve been peeking in the last week and it’s the same thing.

Articles are posted, often with clickbait titles, and sometimes 80+% of the commentary is reacting solely to the headline or snippet in such a way that it is exceedingly clear the actual article was not read.

This is particularly detrimental when the headline or snippet are at odds with what the article actually says. Sometimes the actual information in the article is 180 from the headline. Often, context is omitted, whether unwittingly, lazily, or intentionally.

This is a general Internet behavior. Reddit, FB, Twitter, wherever. People see a headline, go no further, and somehow still have a very . . . boisterous opinion about a thing they haven’t read.

People Who Decline Reading Articles - why?

[hlthe2b]

1. I at least skim as many as have non-paywalled links. It is the constant videos that are problematic to me.

I don't have 15, 20, 30, 45, 60+ minutes to watch them. Some posters (gratefully) post at least bit of summary or even a transcript. They are much appreciated.

But, yeah, I do typically read articles that are linked & freely available. I think generational differences are emerging though.

[Sympthsical]

4. Videos are totally understandable

99% of the time, I do not have a spare 30-60 mins to try to divine what a random video not described is about. Summaries and time stamps go a long way toward my engaging that content. But generally, I just skip it.

[stoned]

2. I read a couple of discussion forums

and a blog or substack page or two. I consume zero "traditional" media.

[Think. Again.]

3. Because headlines are supposed to summarize the articles?

I think the real question is ... Why has "journalism" lost all integrity?

[Sympthsical]

6. They want clicks and views

Which I get. That’s how they make money. But a lot of these places aren’t journalism as it’s understood, particularly many political sites.

But I’m more curious why people are so . . . incurious? If you’re already there and about to type out something on the subject, why not go all in on an extra 30-60 seconds to know what it says?

[Ms. Toad]

8. Headlines have never been particularly accurate.

They are written by an entirely different group of people, in order to entice people to read the article - not to summarize it.

[Think. Again.]

10. Yes, that's how it is now, but the original purpose is to give a gist of the content of the article.

[Ms. Toad]

11. Headlines have been advertisements for the articles for as long as I've been reading newspapers -

at least 6 decades.

They may be worse now, but only in degree - not in their general nature.

[Think. Again.]

13. Yes, newspapers were originally sources of current information for the populace, sprinkled with paid advertisments....

....the article headlines served the same purpose as any title of any informational writing, to briefly inform the prospective reader of the content within.

Edit to add:

Not everything in life has always been a sales tactic of some kind, that's a relatively new result of malignant capitalism. Articles did not need headlines as "advertisments", the subject matter summarized in the headline of any given article either honestly attracted the interest of a potential reader or it didn't. What "sold" the newspaper was the promise of all sorts of reports on all sorts of "new" occurrences relevant to the average citizen. No clickbait needed.

[William769]

5. ...

[usedtobedemgurl]

7. Because of my brain and eyes.

I have a TBI (traumatic brain injury). I assume that is where my double eye site came from, but maybe the accident just knocked something out of whack. So, sometimes I even “watch” tv with my eyes closed, if my vision is bad enough that day. Then there is the cognitive loss I have taken on since my accident. I often complain the day before I was a college graduate and the day after I rode the short yellow bus. I have trouble reading and comprehending, but especially anything longer than a few lines. Irl and here, I have been known to ask folks to explain things to me like I am a five year old. I always mean it. Make it simple and short.

My therapist says she likes who I am, but I miss the person I was. The things I could do. The thoughts I had. I grew up with that person. I loved her. This person is foreign to me and I do not like her at all. She is so stupid, she cannot even remember her dog’s or husband’s name at times. Another “wonderful” side effect from the accident.

[msongs]

9. people should say when theres a paywall or nothing but a blind link with no explanation

bluesky is the biggest time waster along with endless opinion videos by basement dwellers with an ipad - 10 minute videos with 30 seconds worth of actual content

[GusBob]

12. It's always been so

My 2 favorite things
1. Someone in the thread asks a question which is clearly explained in the body of the story
(Sometimes this happens more than once in the thread, even after the question is explained by another poster, which means not only is the article unread, the discussion is ignored)

2. Someone makes a claim which is in direct contradiction with facts in the body of the article.
(Sometimes this poster will argue when you point out the true facts)

To answer your question: laziness, ignorance and poor reading comprehension

[Celerity]

15. and agendas (often expressed via wilful false framing attempts)

To answer your question: laziness, ignorance and poor reading comprehension

[sheshe2]

19. The problem I see is not:

To answer your question: laziness, ignorance and poor reading comprehension

People often post articles that are behind paywalls. Many times they don't bother to even post the 4 paragraphs permitted. Why don't they at the very least give us that curtsy? It makes me wonder if they have access and have read the whole article themselves.

I for one can't afford to sign up and some demand an email address in lieu of payment and I refuse to give out my information.

Just a thought.

[Celerity]

14. + 1,000,000

[AllaN01Bear]

16. ive been habitating in lounge ,artists. birders and watching videos.

will peek in to see if the article warrents ti be looked at or not.

[Skittles]

17. I don't care to read anything about BS

so, there's that

[Behind the Aegis]

18. Basically, some are writing a "book report" based on the title of the book or from the synopsis.

If I can read the article, I do. If I can't, then I usually don't comment unless I have read another article about the topic, understanding something may be different.

It is laziness and lack of actual interest in the story. Some is nothing more than virtue-signaling, at best.