Students read this shit. It's perpetuating the problem.

George Lakoff and I pushed this simple and reasonable idea years ago. When I returned to journalism, I realized the problem. Editors care more about SEO and controversy (=clicks) than about whether the headline is destroying truth. Incentive is to bait engagement at all cost.

Unfortunately, in US journalism it is considered neutral to spread a lie, but it is considered "biased" to call out a lie. So, there is a structural asymmetry that rewards colorful lies with virality.

I once went to war over an editor who changed "systemic inequities" to "trapped in poverty".

he thought trapped in poverty was the more objective phrasing 🙃 ran it by the standards editor and everything

And there's no real encouragement to continue to read about journalism, like as a field of study. It's either how to report better (so techniques etc) or the business of journalism. Very little on what the fuck is our actual impact on the world? What are our norms doing?

Yeah, studying the sociology of news was eye-opening.

Would it have been a cool twist?

Yes.

Did I think it was a bad idea knowing most people don't read to the end of the story?

Yes.

He refused to let me do it my way (the ETHICALLY CORRECT WAY), so I pulled the lie.

I did a story once that introduced a lie (it was relevant it was in the news a lot). I wanted to correct it right away - because I'd been trained if you have to introduce a falsehood correct it right away. My editor wanted to save it for the "kicker" as a big reveal