Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Just the headline for most things, especially now.
I read the whole shit more or less for 9 years, most others didn't even read the headline and just thought it was fake news. It did me no good to be so hyper-informed. Why should I continue what I was doing when being hyper-informed about Trump just gave me more Trump? I'm good. I'll read whole articles if it matters. For "Gaetz for AG" it doesn't matter.
Do y'all actually read articles or just the headline?
Both. I first read the headline (while taking it with an immense grain of salt due to, by my experience, the commonplace usage of clickbait/misleading headlines) to see if the article may interest me, then, if so, I read the article to either effectively fact-check the article's own headline, or to actually get more detail on what the headline summarized — though, it certainly feels like it is more often than not the former. Sometimes, however, the headline, on it's own, is enough, but that seems rare — logically, it is in a news company's best interest to get people to read the article (if it is assumed that they get income from people reading the article's content) so they would be incentivized to make the headline as provoking or nebulous as possible to maximize the probability that one will click on it.
Its just crazy cabinet nominees every time. Wars happening. Nothing I can control.
Personally, I believe that it's, at the very least, important to be peripherally aware of what's happening in the world, but one must be careful to recognize what they can and can't control — what is worth fretting over and what isn't. Inundating oneself with the knowledge of any number of horrible things that may have happened somewhere in the world in a given day is generally of no help to anyone and only serves to degrade one's own mental state.
Y’all actually read all this shit? How does anyone have the energy?
The most tiring thing, personally, is fact checking. It is tiring to feel like the majority of my interactions with news articles that are shared are that of dealing with misleading claims and misdirected or misinformed reactions. It certainly feels like the majority offloads the scrutiny of data onto the minority.
If an article doesn't fit my mental model of the world I'll often skim through it and check out a related wikipedia
What's 'articles' hobbitses?
I always read the headline and if the headline is interesting I'll read the article.
One thing I don't do is voice my opinion about an article without reading it.
Sometimes I try, but I about as soon as the paywall pops up.
I do but that is because I use RSS feeds and heavily curate what I get (think new scientific papers, animation news, and DIY stuff) those articals are almost always interesting enough to get me to read them in entirety. Politics on the other hand... I check in maybe once a month to see what is going on. If something huge happens I'm sure I will find out from my coworkers quick enough.
If the article sounds interesting, I'll read it, although I usually skim articles these days.
I read the headline, I read the discussion. If the discussion convinces me to read the article myself, I will. If there's broad consensus, generally it's not worth my time to confirm what I've learned already.
I do this for several reasons:
Ads. Even with ad blocker the frequent text breaks are exhausting.
Overeditorialization. I want the facts, not a narrative. I get why that's the way the information is presented, but my time is limited and I'm not into it. Same reason I don't really like (non-nature) documentaries
Perspective. The author has their own unitary perspective, and I prefer to consume multiple perspectives on an issue so I can explore the problem/solution space.
If it's short, data heavy, and plays nice with Simplified Mode then I'll read it real quick, but the less navigation I have to do to obtain information the better.
I didn't read your question but "yes"
But actually, I don't for political stuff because it is so freaking depressing, and you can't affect it much.
I love reading science articles though!
The articles almost never contain information that can't be found mentioned or directly quoted by comments
If there aren't enough comments for that to be true: the story is boring, I'll read about it elsewhere if it's ever important
Don't have the time to load these websites that take ages even when you block their ads just to see it's another 20 paragraph long article that could have been a concise 3 sentences
Sometimes. I'll often read the comments to get the highlights, but I'll also read the article if it interests me or when I need to know more details.
And let's be honest: 90% of news articles don't contain more relevant information for me than the headline.
"Politician said X" has almost never any effect on my life.
I just scrolled through the front page of Der Spiegel. The first 10 articles are speculations about campaign decisions, analyses of things already known, and opinion pieces of some mildly knowledgeable people.
Yeah, that's mostly irrelevant. Yes, some background would be nice, but I don't have time to read about everything that isn't of consequence for me anyway.
Same here but with some tuning:
I read comments very carefully. If there isn't a summary bot I don't trust comments as true anymore. If the publisher prevents reader mode (firefox) or requires either a subscription or non-essential cookies: Keep your secrets.
Also, if the headline is too hard a clickbait, I skip it as well.
Depends on the article. Political or most other real world news, probably gonna either just read the headline and any comments. If it's something that interests me, I feel more compelled to read it, though.
the commenters didn't read it either
I have adhd
I try to, when I have the time, but I don't sweat it if I don't, I just try to avoid forming too many opinions about the topic.
Also, a good chunk of the time I try, I get paywalled. Which I can usually bypass if I'm on PC, but that's not really feasible on mobile.
Props to all the heroes copying the article into the post, or pointing out when the headline is misleading.
I don't, I just try to avoid forming too many opinions about the topic.
The best way to handle most things in life. Do what you want, just always assume you know nothing about a topic.
If the headline sounds interesting I'll read the article.
Same
Same, but replace 'article' with 'comments'
My conservative inlaws read headlines aloud like it's a fact without reading the article.
And make up a scenario about the headline. Its like angry improve for distressing yourself.
I read the article if when I open the link, I am not immediately slapped in the face with ads that aren't blocked by uBlock Origin, an ad block blocker, or a paywall. But I'm not also not reading multiple articles on the same exact topic just because they come from different outlets. 9 times out of 10, they're exactly the same but with slight variation on verbiage because they all took the same original information from the actual original source and just re-worded it.
Worked for a newspaper for many years. This is a great question.
Good headlines are both intended to give reasonable summaries and drive readers toward articles they'd like to read, because newspapers -- and news media congregation systems in general -- don't have a true table of contents, only a series of categories under which article types live. Headlines, at a glance, function as a table of contents in newsprint formats because of this: you can scan for what you find interesting, but don't have to intake the whole newspaper page to understand what's being reported.
App scrolling through headlines, then, is functionally the same thing. Just a different UX, is all.
What I find really worrying though is the trend to pick headlines that don't summarize, but sensationalize and twist the content. And that's not just a tabloid problem.
I know that this is designed to generate more clicks, but since most people skip most of the content, only the headlines stick. And if these are wrong, misinformation will stick.
If I'm going to comment then I read. Always seeing mfs asking questions answered in the article or raging about shit they imagined based on the headline alone. It's embarrassing
(👉👈)
I read the article if I want to talk to someone about it or make a comment, otherwise I read headline, then go to the comments.
I just read the comments.
Interestingly, I read the full article more often now on lemmy vs back on reddit. Maybe because there aren’t a ton of comments on posts here so I don’t have context and need to just read it myself. Either way, it’s better because I get to form my own opinion instead of basing it off on other people’s comments.
Just the headline so I can ensure I misinterpret the context fully when drunkenly ranting at my mates about it.
I mostly read the headlines since most articles these days are written to fill a length quota and info is sparse. Most articles are now full of fluff.
Personally I wish there was a way to filter out all the comments by people who haven't read the article.
In the off chance I do try to read the article, the ridiculous amount ads and popups remind me why I just read headlines.
If I find the headline interesting, I might read the article if I have enough time.
Before I comment on things, I do at the very least skim them to confirm that I'm commenting on what the article actually says, not just the headline.
Both. It depends on how interested I am in the headline and whether there is a paywall.
RSS reader -> skim headlines -> open the full article from maybe 10% of the headlines -> skim the first paragraph to see how clickbaity the headline was -> read through the full article on maybe 50% of those.
And this isn't just global and political news, I follow science, tech, sports, and other niche interest news this way too.
Some days I just listen to NPR's Morning Edition podcast snips. Double speed. Skip over any with a title that doesn't interest me.
And finally, I discard any completionist feelings. My RSS feed will never be all caught up. My podcast queue will never be empty. That used to bother me but I have some tools to manage my stress over it a bit better now.
If it's a unique event then I read the article. If it's just something like a cabinet pick, a nation's response to another nation's actions etc. I just rely on the headline.
I'm around 50:50, I read a lot of them but am prone to cynical hot takes on occasion. I'm particularly interested in social community and feeling like I'm at least present with others. Physical disability and in my case, the social isolation it causes–sucks. I'm here when I'm not able to do much else and need to escape. So that is my excuse for the times I'm not reading and the overly cynical hot takes.
If it seems interesting I'll skim through it.
Depends solely on ad blocking and writing. I will if it's interesting. If it's mindless dribble or not easy to access, I'm out.
If you're seeing a lot of material you don't want to see, for whatever reason, you should look at which communities it keeps appearing in and unjoin those communities. Even if they would otherwise be of interest, they are doing you harm right now. You can always rejoin later.
I'll read the article if it's not behind a paywall. I often don't finish them because most articles are poorly written.
That depends both on the particular topic and whether it's paywalled or not. If it is paywalled, a summary will usually suffice, plus I can get a better gist of it from some of the more serious comments in the thread.
Most of the time just the headline. If it's obviously opinion I'll often skip. If the headline is a question I'll usually skip. If it's an obviously horrific story I'll skip. If it's something that is relevant or useful I'll read. You are what you eat. That applies to your eyes and ears as well as your mouth
yup, I have a lot of time so I read a lot.
If you don't have a lot of time, don't sweat it.
