Tbf, reading the headline I also assumed the author accidentally took them home. I’m pretty sure this ambiguity is on purpose, and should be frowned upon.
You do have a point there. Media literacy should get a better focus during education.
However I don’t think its a fair comparison. The general public cannot currently be expected to have good media literacy, as long as there is no proper public education. I’m not aware of any public schools properly teaching media literacy during the general education (I mean before college), so a good chunk of the population, if not the majority, will never even stop to consider things like what kinda assumptions they made about an article. (Just like I did before this discussion)
It is something you can expect from someone who studied journalism though.
So if the goal of the journalist was good journalism, they should plan ahead and use clear language without any room for assumptions. If they use headlines like this it just seems like clickbait to me.
What ambiguity? “Booking.com ignored me after my bedbug nightmare” is a fine headline. Seeing bedbugs on your pillow when you walk in, not getting a clean replacement room, missing out on work, and having to pay for this experience is a nightmare.
The ambiguity of what exactly is meant by ‘nightmare’. It intentionally leaves it up to the readers interpretation what could be meant, and because of the harshness of the used word, the reader immediately thinks of the worst possible outcome - an infestation of your own home.
That’s on you for assuming, it’s not a long article and it’s not unclear how it all played out. Had the author not bought new clothes and washed the rest that would have been the outcome.
The thing I’m trying to get at: a good title shouldn’t leave room for assumptions, and I’m pretty sure this kinda stuff is being done just to make you click, not to provide good journalism.
Tbf, reading the headline I also assumed the author accidentally took them home. I’m pretty sure this ambiguity is on purpose, and should be frowned upon.
Shouldn’t making assumptions about an article before reading it be frowned upon too?
You do have a point there. Media literacy should get a better focus during education.
However I don’t think its a fair comparison. The general public cannot currently be expected to have good media literacy, as long as there is no proper public education. I’m not aware of any public schools properly teaching media literacy during the general education (I mean before college), so a good chunk of the population, if not the majority, will never even stop to consider things like what kinda assumptions they made about an article. (Just like I did before this discussion)
It is something you can expect from someone who studied journalism though.
So if the goal of the journalist was good journalism, they should plan ahead and use clear language without any room for assumptions. If they use headlines like this it just seems like clickbait to me.
What ambiguity? “Booking.com ignored me after my bedbug nightmare” is a fine headline. Seeing bedbugs on your pillow when you walk in, not getting a clean replacement room, missing out on work, and having to pay for this experience is a nightmare.
The ambiguity of what exactly is meant by ‘nightmare’. It intentionally leaves it up to the readers interpretation what could be meant, and because of the harshness of the used word, the reader immediately thinks of the worst possible outcome - an infestation of your own home.
That’s on you for assuming, it’s not a long article and it’s not unclear how it all played out. Had the author not bought new clothes and washed the rest that would have been the outcome.
The thing I’m trying to get at: a good title shouldn’t leave room for assumptions, and I’m pretty sure this kinda stuff is being done just to make you click, not to provide good journalism.