560
I honestly do have to check (piefed.cdn.blahaj.zone)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/politicalmemes@lemmy.world
29 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 11 months ago (13 children)

Yeah those are are still pretty sensationalist, and that's with leaving out the bulk of the content. How do you divulge the content without sounding like satire? Anyone can make a crazy story sound sane by just not telling the crazy parts. You gotta tell the crazy parts too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago (12 children)

    I believe those are very bland headlines. If you think those are sensational, then I think the problem is not the headline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    A foreign leader has blackmail in the US President, that's sensational no matter how you slice it.

    And you ignored the important part. How do you word reporting the content of the reported photos? How do you say that the alleged photo is of the president blowing someone without sounding like satire?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (10 children)

    I don’t think anything about the situation is it all satire. It doesn’t feel like satire. It does not seem extreme. It seems like shit that just happens on a daily basis. One person has dirt on another person.

    What you keep forgetting is that this is being delivered in such a way to cause an extreme reaction. Trump sucks Bubba is quite the headline.

    What we are really talking about is that most people prefer the extreme headline, and that’s why those extreme headlines exist. Would you click on An article that had the headline that I created—or would you click on an article that said Trump accused of sucking Bill Clinton’s dick?

    I think we both know the answer: we both would definitely click on that extreme headline.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (9 children)

    I think you're confused. You're assuming that because the headline is sensational, the cause is sensationalism.

    Simple question: how do you convey all of the information "email suggests Putin has photos of Trump blowing someone"? You keep diverting. Answer the question.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (8 children)

    Oh I see, how do I convey all the information in an entire article within one headline because you don’t want to read the article you just want to read the headline… Well, I don’t know how to help you. If you don’t know how to read or don’t want to read, that’s on you. I will say, that really does explain a lot about the United States. I hope you have the day you voted for

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (7 children)

    No, you don't see. That wasn't what anyone said, you're just missing the point.

    Stop focusing on headlines. How do you communicate the totality of the facts? Headline, article, wherever. It's like you're intentionally missing the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (6 children)

    I feel you’re intentionally ignoring the point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (5 children)

    No. You're focused on sensationalist headlines, the point is that no matter how you word the headline, the facts of reality being reported are objectively sensational. Even with the most sober and neutral tone, the things that are happening are so ridiculous they read as satire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)

    People get their dicks sucked all the time… from other guys… but also, there is zero actual evidence—pending confirmation from Bill 🤞

    So maybe that topic seems like satire… because it’s just speculation. If you mix speculation with sensational writing, it sounds like satire. It sounds like former Onion writers switched publications.

    Perhaps we should stop posting speculation with sensational writing designed to make us excited.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    It is not speculation to report on the content of an email. The email said what it said, that is a fact.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, but, “Bubba” was either Bill Clinton, Maxwell’s horse, an unknown party, a joke, or just a double entendre that might not even mean sex.

    As much as I want that email to explicitly say that Donny blew Billy………. It does not.

    I think the real problem is, you want these things to be true (as much as me), but you’re talking it a step further and calling it a fact before it actually is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    No, the fact I'm referring to is the text of the email. Whether the text alludes to factual events is besides the point. The email exists, and it says what it says. Any thorough reporting on such a ridiculous situation is going to sound like satire.

    And this is only one example. This is the latest in a never ending stream of ridiculous scandals and unbelievable turns of events. This is not the result of sensational headlines, this is the result of sensational events.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •