Late last week Steve Sailer posted an item in
regards to media headlines. In this case the New Yorker:
When did we start seeing this kind of headline in magazines? I can imagine a 1940 Methodist publication using the same “How Should We Think About …” formula. The Daily Worker, too. I can even imagine the 1930 New Yorker running a Robert Benchley parody of a Sunday sermon with this kind of headline.
My response to this question is that it's been going on for quite a bit of time. I can't vouch for
print media but this kind of headline is common in places like The Guardian, The Independent and various other left toppled over media. Once I see a headline that starts with "how should you" or "You should be terrified" or "You'll be horrified" or "So and So's response to Such and Such was perfect..", I know that the publication is trying to prime me into an emotional state. A lot of people don't believe that repeated and suggestive statements actually affect people. There are even r
esearch that discredits things like NLP But there are billions spent on advertising that says otherwise. These repeated bold headlines are not accidental in the least bit. If you've ever had a jingle or a phrase stick in your head or be spontaneously "recalled" upon seeing a certain product or behavior, you have just proven that repeated honed messages work.
Here's how these headlines work. You see a "You'll be horrified when..." headline and the vast majority of people will go further
expecting some kind of "traumatic" story to be relayed. Then when going in, the details are laid out and one has to either accept that the events relayed are "horrifying" or they are not. Here's the thing though, in order to decide that something is not "horrifying" one has to be willing to question the headline. Usually, the stories behind the headline will have framed the story (the narrative) in such a way that
contradictory information is omitted or so far towards the end that the average reader will not reach it. For example it's easy to trigger African-Americans and liberal whites by producing a headline that says:
Unarmed Black Man Shot By Police.
If the story contains such a point as:
police were called after neighbors saw the suspect breaking into vehicles.
It will be near the end of the story and will make the rounds. Those who point out the "suspect was..." part, will be in violation of the "you should be horrified" narrative.
Personally, my bullshit alarm goes off every time I see a "you should" or "you'll be" headline. I know that there is an attempt to condition my mind and I immediately put up mental barriers. In fact, I generally avoid articles that have these headlines. True journalism does not tell me how I should emotionally react to information being given to me. Journalism is supposed to give me the information. I decide what I feel about it during or after.
