Why is this news?

I mean, it's a little different when you're talking about the nation's premier political coverage.

I'm really specifically quibbling with "record level of support." Fewer than one-third of the senators of his own party support it. That's not news. I mean, bills to abolish the IRS get three to four times that level of support.

It's kind of like some boxer bragging that he's the "longest-reigning champion" of a sanctioning body that was just formed a month earlier.

At least it didn't make today's A1.

 

It's clickbait. Like everything on the Interwebs. Real news doesn't matter. Clicks matter!

 

To me it's news—at some level, you can argue about placement—because of what it presages, which is the likelihood that in 2020 the nominee of one of the two major political parties will campaign on universal health care.

 

The circus! Don't forget the circus! Had one stop where the editor kept insisting on a picture of elephants, above all else.

 

I'm sure plenty of lobbyists took note.

And aren't most front-pages of websites monitored and adjusted by clicks? So if you initially post a story down low that out-performs everything else on a page it will make its way to the top?

 

So the question really isn't, is this news? It's, is this headline overselling it?

I mean, one of the five or ten most notable politicians in the land is grandstanding to push his agenda, one which has a certain, not-insignificant segment of supporters. It's news. Is it lead news? Probably only on HuffPo. But probably worth one of 25 or so spots on the front of a website.

 

If you have people on top of their shit, probably. But that's usually quite an if.

 

Thank you!

 

That's an awfully big assumption, one that's about two steps away from socialism, to happen in just three years.

I seriously doubt Trump would ever consider such a policy and I doubt the Democrats are ready for it either. But, it's probably coming, eventually, because that's just where our country seems headed. Liberals always want something for free and liberals increasingly think everything should be equal.

The real news here will be when there is an actual legitimate number of congress men and women that support such legislation. That's when it will be a story. As for now, it's clickbait plain and simple.

 

Would you need that "legitimate" number to make the headline accurate, or to make the story itself not "clickbait"?

 

If you think 15 of 535 is legitimate, then have at it. But yeah, if there were 200 votes supporting it, I think the headline would be more accurate and less about clicks.

 

I don't care one way or another about some imaginary standard of legitimacy.

I suppose I'll phrase it this way, the original question was, is it news? I'll take it from this you feel it was a clickbait headline, the record-setting part anyway, but the story itself was news.

(The exact nature of "clickbait" remains a sort of interesting one. Is it just crafting a story in a manner that will get people to read? Or does there have to be an element of overselling? Or does it have to be heavy overselling?)