4 Out of 5 Doctors Recommend...
Rebel Meter: 1 out of 10
This is a headline that you should consider problematic: “3-in-5 Canadians attribute climate change and global warming to human activity: survey”. It doesn’t matter if the ratio is 3 in 5 or 0 in 5, or what the sample size was, or what the statistical methodology was. It’s a meaningless statement. If I am hoping that it reveals something about the truth or falsehood that climate change is attributable to human activity, I should be disappointed. The headline backs nothing up. It just makes a statement that 60% of 1000 people surveyed, believe that climate change is human caused. That is merely an opinion, a point of view. It does not prove that climate change is human caused. These 1000 people surveyed are not climate scientists. What on earth do they know?
To be fair, the related question was only one of several questions in the survey. Most of the questions were about whether government, corporations and individuals were or were not doing enough to address climate change. Still, the headline is just your garden variety click-bait. I was taken in by it. This one appeals to either a sense of denialism or to a sense of agreement with the scientists. It’s subtly saying: if you are a climate denier, you are in the minority. Out of step. Perhaps a radical. A tool of the political right. If you are a supporter of human caused climate change, then you are obviously on the correct side of popular opinion. These are the kinds of headlines I love to hate. It says nothing about what is true or even what is probable. To get closer to the truth, a responsible critical thinker has to do some research. Find out about climate science. Perhaps read at least the IPCC summary report. The effects of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere are not opinion. The debate about whether or not climate change is human caused should be settled. Yet I still clicked on this headline. Because petty human, I wanted to see how this debate broke down. Who is on my side? Who is on the other? To be sure, it is easier to execute on policy when there is public buy in. That doesn’t mean that I grab onto any statement that seems reasonable to me.
I have now reminded myself to look carefully at headlines and examine them closely. I have to ask myself at least three questions. Is this headline leading me to a interesting topic? Is the headline leading me to a product that I don’t need? Is the headline leading me to new truth? Perhaps you have other questions you ask yourself when you come across a headline. I am interested to know how you decide what to click on and what to bypass.
Interesting question. I think I gravitate towards transparent headlines. If it clearly tells me what I'm going to read and why it is of interest, I will click, assuming it is something I am genuinely interested in. Like yourself I think I've also developed a criteria or framework for evaluating each headline. Though mostly in the form of reasons to reject. Click bait being the obvious reason to avoid or ignore.