Have you ever read a headline while reading the news, whether it's considered a serious platform or not, where you truly question why someone would write a whole article dedicated to something so trivial? How is it possible today to see two articles side by side about two drastically different subjects like "Baby Found Amongst Rubble in Syria" right next to "Will Selena Gomez Ever Wear a Bra Again"? I understand that the world can't always focus on the negative aspects of life all the time but shouldn't we start to question how nitpicking an famous individual is a better news alternative?
I feel that "unnecessary" might be a bit subjective. I could be wrong, but it feels more like you want to critique the online news cycle and clickbait, as compared to print journalism standards. Some questions that could be asked: Who writes clickbait? Why is there a prevalence of clickbait articles on the internet? How has internet journalism changed which topics are highlighted by news websites? How has ad revenue impacted headline choices? And how do algorithms give very different headlines equal standing on any given website? – Eden5 years ago
I think it could be useful to explore where we draw the line between "Buzzfeed journalism" and "New York Times journalism" (for example). Are either one of these less legitimate than the other? In a world where SEM and SEO increasingly rule, and newsrooms are shrinking, which urge wins-- the urge to write material of quality and truth and intellect, or the urge to actually get people to read it and make a little money off of it? Is there a way to combine both? – haileyscomet5 years ago
Celebrity gossip is unnecessary. Who cares if the dress is black or white (or whatever it was) or who has broken up with whom?
On the other hand, it would be nice to see more articles about a hobby or genre of music or something. Interesting, but not stupid. – OkaNaimo08195 years ago