If a headline is click bait, you can’t really expect the rest of the article to be honest and straightforward either. If that’s not convincing enough, you can always find a few websites that rate news sites and see what they have to say about them.
Journalists write articles, editors write headlines. These two roles have different motivations, but it doesnt mean a editor making a clikbait title detracts from a reporter’s journalist integrity.
Reporting can 100% be clean and fair even with bad headlines.
I don’t find that to be a particularly effective heuristic.
If a headline is click bait, you can’t really expect the rest of the article to be honest and straightforward either. If that’s not convincing enough, you can always find a few websites that rate news sites and see what they have to say about them.
Journalists write articles, editors write headlines. These two roles have different motivations, but it doesnt mean a editor making a clikbait title detracts from a reporter’s journalist integrity.
Reporting can 100% be clean and fair even with bad headlines.
Not when most people just read the headlines, and the headlines are often biased and misleading
People’s habits have nothing to do with a journalist’s quailty of work. A fine article not read is still a fine article.
A fine article is less likely to have a clickbait headline than a clickbait article is. So it’s a decent correlation.
“Reporting can 100% be clean and fair even with bad headlines.”
This is the part I disagree with. People are very often misled by bogus clickbait headlines.