|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
The Wall Street Journal's Linkbait Article
On Friday, I saw an article on WSJ titled Why French Parents are Superior. If this title sounds strangely familiar to you, it's probably because an article with the title, Why Chinese Mothers are Superior created kind of a national outrage 13 months ago[1]. Now, this article regarding French parents is actually quite tame and perhaps even on the side of nondescript. While this article is essentially a book promotion effort much like its Chinese predecessor, its content is nowhere near as controversial (which itself had been transmuted from its original intent and attitude by WSJ editors to be more sensational and eye-grabbing). This new article talks about bringing up small children, which is an area where no one has definitive confidence that they're doing things perfectly. If the content and attitude of the article is so tame, then why the abrasive title? To be frank, this is just linkbait. That's right; the Wall Street Journal has fallen so low as to employ elementary linkbait material in an effort to attract readers. Their Chinese predecessor has been revealed to have been modified greatly from its original intent and attitude by WSJ editors, and so I expect nothing less for this article as well. I used to think that the Wall Street Journal was one of the last standing bastions of journalism. Perhaps certain parts of the Journal are still upstanding, but it's pretty clear to me now that other sections behave like the prototypical internet troll. It's pretty disappointing.
[1] For instance, it has 41400+ Mentions on Twitter.
Crossposted from my main blog
  
|
Don't news organizations depend on readers? While I'm no fan of sensationalism in new stories, I don't see the harm in spicing up a headline in something as otherwise deadly dull as a glorified book review.
If it's indicative of a larger trend then I suppose there could be a potential issue, but I just can't see this as a big deal by itself. I guess I don't expect the same standards of "journalistic integrity" from opinion pieces, no matter who's running them.
|
WSJ has gone way down hill. I feel the same way about the Economist as well actually.
MCK Quarterly is still pretty good.
|
The WSJ has "fallen so low" that it now uses provocative headlines. What's the world coming to?
|
WSJ is a pretty shitty media source.Has been since it was born thanks to R.M's way of being totally indiscriminate about his bias.They usually try to bait readers in with sensationalism just like when the front page was an overweight cat,I mean seriously?
|
On February 06 2012 11:57 mrafaeldie12 wrote:
WSJ is a pretty shitty media source.Has been since it was born thanks to R.M's way of being totally indiscriminate about his bias.They usually try to bait readers in with sensationalism just like when the front page was an overweight cat,I mean seriously?
Totally agree. Look at FOX before him. It was actually a half decent news source.
|
On February 06 2012 12:03 TiTanIum_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 11:57 mrafaeldie12 wrote:
WSJ is a pretty shitty media source.Has been since it was born thanks to R.M's way of being totally indiscriminate about his bias.They usually try to bait readers in with sensationalism just like when the front page was an overweight cat,I mean seriously? Totally agree. Look at FOX before him. It was actually a half decent news source.
I can't back you up on that statement.
|
When I first saw the blog post I thought you were talking about Weekly Shonen Jump :/
But there is a reason I dont read Wall street Journal.
|
United States33707 Posts
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
|
On February 06 2012 12:39 mrafaeldie12 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2012 12:03 TiTanIum_ wrote:On February 06 2012 11:57 mrafaeldie12 wrote:
WSJ is a pretty shitty media source.Has been since it was born thanks to R.M's way of being totally indiscriminate about his bias.They usually try to bait readers in with sensationalism just like when the front page was an overweight cat,I mean seriously? Totally agree. Look at FOX before him. It was actually a half decent news source. I can't back you up on that statement.
I was kinda being sarcastic, but I think I have overdone it (or did it completely wrong). Let me try again, minus the sarcasm:
It isn't Rupert Murdoch's fault that the media is like this. It isn't because of him that the WSJ is trying linkbaits and controversial headlines. That's the way media coverage has been done for the previous centuries. But now they are seeing their profits dwindle and even publications that did not need to resort to these tactics, are doing it.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I was just making fun of the silly people in this thread. Sorry.
|
I was on the WSJ website today and I noticed that this article has become #1 most emailed story on the site. If thousands of readers actually think it's interesting enough to forward to their friends, maybe it's not as nondescript as you say. As a parent of a 2-year old I thought the article was pretty interesting. Perhaps you didn't because (just guessing here) you don't have kids? Forgive me if I'm making a false assumption. But I think your criticism is misplaced.
|
On February 06 2012 10:31 Cambium wrote:
WSJ has gone way down hill. I feel the same way about the Economist as well actually.
Yeah, the Economist has really been going down the shitter recently.
|
I had cnn.com as my homepage for years until one day i got so sick of getting linkbaited that i changed it to wikinews, the only periodical i read now is The New Yorker, and occasionally Google news which obv is ridic personalized.
|
Holy shit. The article about Chinese mothers is fucking insane. Nothing wrong with pushing your kids. But damn.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
