Progressive Politics

3156 readers

806 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

Consent Manufacturing (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

11 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Not OP, but it seems like they have changed the headline of the article a lot here and keep changing it

Archive is, shows that at one point the article had a headline of:

"Scores reported dead in Gaza school shelter as Israel says it bombed militants"

https://archive.is/RS0UR

But then changed again

As of writing this comment, it's changed again from your comment to "Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, officials say" which is different than what your screenshot shows

News organization sometimes also do A/B tests where they show different headlines to different people to see what gets the most clicks. Unsure if Reuters does this but I know some others do

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Yes, I understand what they are claiming Reuters is doing. I am saying that as far as I can tell, it isn’t true (the current headline bears no resemblance to the sanitized version OP is claiming), and I’m wondering why OP is saying that it is.

It looks to me like Reuters edited the headline to take out the idea that Israel says it was targeting militants, because although it may be true that Israel said that, it's become clear that it wasn't true, so there was no reason to repeat it in the headline. OP is saying Reuters did the opposite of that edit, and I'm asking them to clarify, which they so far don't seem to feel like doing.

News organization sometimes also do A/B tests where they show different headlines to different people to see what gets the most clicks. Unsure if Reuters does this but I know some others do

This is a fascinating assertion (as pertains to respectable news outlets like Reuters that drop a little note into place when they edit a headline for the exact reason that they don't want people to get the sense they're being shifty with what they're presenting - I am sure there are news websites that do it but I would be very surprised if any of the mainstream print news outlets that have web presences do it)

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I should have clarified my comment about how the article changed. First archived version of the article on archive.is (almost certainly not the first headline) was:

"Israel strike on Gaza school kills more than 100, Palestinian news agency says"

Then the next archived version was Scores reported dead in Gaza school shelter as Israel says it bombed militants

And then it went back to Israeli strike kills nearly 100 in Gaza school refuge, civil defence officials say

(and almost certainly more versions of the headline missing from the archive)

So presumably they posted the tweet during that part in the middle

EDIT: looks like you added some more to your comment, so will respond to that

"but I would be very surprised if any of the mainstream print news outlets that have web presences do it"

The New York Times is very open about doing A/B testing, which I would consider a mainstream print news outlet with a web presence

The Times also makes a practice of running what are called A/B tests on the digital headlines that appear on its homepage: Half of readers will see one headline, and the other half will see an alternative headline, for about half an hour. At the end of the test, The Times will use the headline that attracted more readers

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/insider/headline-trump-time-interview.html

[–] mozz@mbin.grits.dev 0 points 1 year ago

(Responding to your response about my edit)

Hm, I didn't know about the Times doing A/B tests before deciding what headline to run. Yeah, I guess I am wrong about it ever happening -- although it still sounds like once they settle on one digital headline they stick with it for everyone and drop a note in the "updated X ago" line if they change it. For reference here's exactly what they said:

Digital headlines often evolve after a story has been published online, too. A writer might file an update containing new information that changes the focus, for instance, or an editor may decide to update a headline so that search engines will find the article more easily. “In a competitive news environment, there’s value in changing a headline when the story changes, because it keeps you up in search,” Ms. Taylor said.

The Times also makes a practice of running what are called A/B tests on the digital headlines that appear on its homepage: Half of readers will see one headline, and the other half will see an alternative headline, for about half an hour. At the end of the test, The Times will use the headline that attracted more readers. “People think if you change a headline, that it’s some kind of ‘Gotcha!,’ and it’s just not,” said Mark Bulik, a senior editor who oversees digital headlines. “People who think it’s a ‘gotcha’ just don’t have a full understanding of news in the digital world.”

But in any case, I think the point still stands -- Reuters was clearly doing that first-paragraph thing here, updating to remove the Israeli viewpoint (possibly because they had time to gather more information themselves and determine that the Israelis were talking bullshit about what had happened and there wasn't a need to report their claims). I don't believe that they have one version of the headline that represents one set of facts and another that doesn't and they serve them both simultaneously, and archive.is and the Twitter guy just happened to see them transforming in opposite directions, with lies underneath where it says "Updated 4 mins ago". It sort of looks to me more likely that Twitter guy / OP is just lying about what happened, to make Reuters look bad for reasons unknown.

Certainly the thesis that at the current time it's transformed into Israeli propaganda is dead wrong, and that is relevant.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)