I read, a lot. So much so, that often my brain hurts from the absorption of all this information. However, that’s not my point. “So what’s your point then, jagoff?” Writing quality has been sacrificed in lieu of writers who value sensationalism instead of value. This will continue to have reaching effects as long as a higher value is placed on “click-rate” over quality, or simply, quantity over quality.
See, it’s the headline that drives the piece, that’s nothing new. Further, it’s the first paragraph grab, which also isn’t new. That’s journalism 101. Unfortunately, what is happening isn’t journalism.
What passes for publicly acceptable writing, is an extension of the current trend for narrative driven media. It’s not acceptable to just tell the story, but readers should also know how you feel about it, and how they should feel about it. Often, the basis for the narrative is driven by any variety of “slippery slope” arguments. Random collections of “what-ifs” and fabricated anecdotes, loosely tied together, to form what the author perceives as a valid point worth making.
The biggest issue with this process, as I see it, is that this written piece then trickles out through the masses via “shares” or “likes,” receiving validation in the process, not because the value of the piece has merit, but because it has perceived merit, based on the socially acceptable level of the current quality of penmanship. So pervasive, that mainstay “journalists” feel the need to address it on public television, or in large-scale print, to the point where people no longer value the story, but rather, the opinion of the story.
Alas, I learn from learning what not to do. I do this in the hope that others will also notice this. That potentially, the next time they read some piece of sensationalist garbage, they know better than to take it on face value, and maybe, just maybe, they reserve the option to not share or not click. Either way, a girl can dream, can’t she?