Headlines that signal that the story will be misleading and/or stupid

[Meadmaker]

Here's one:

CNN's Disgusting Front Page Story After Trump Was Shot Says It All



I've seen a couple with this theme, but none quite so extreme as this one. I wonder what they think was so "disgusting" over at CNN. Somehow, I doubt it was all that bad. On a couple of right wing sites, I've seen complaints that they said "former President whisked off stage" instead of "Trump shot". Somehow, it was supposed to be minimizing the event. In reality, it was only a case of CNN posting only information that they confirm For at least an hour after the shooting, it was unclear in publicly presented information whether Trump had actually been shot.


That's why, when breaking news happens, I open up the Drudge Report. They have lower standards, so they push things before they can be confirmed. They're usually right, but they beat others to the punch by quoting less reputable sources. If I see something truly incredible at Drudge, I wait until a credible source says the same thing.

So, what's so disgusting? (Goes off to read rest of article)


Here was the "disgusting" headline, from CNN's International Edition: (i.e. not the specific to USA edition)

"Dozens killed as Israel targets Hamas military chief,"

The disgusing thing is that, one hour after the incident, they didn't make the Trump shooting the lead story. Instead, there was a smaller story with the headline "Trump injured in incident at Pennsylvania rally."

Yep. That's surely disgusting.

[Admin]

Yep. That's surely disgusting.

Quite right - there's nothing more important on the planet than Donald J Trump.

[stanky]

And he's back, like nothing happened; freed of the stolen documents trial; new V.P. pick too. (Vance)
Hillbilly elegy sucks, btw.

[stanky]

we saw the flick when it was first hyped. had no idea who J.D was, but i remember thinking it wasn't a story worthy of telling. now, he's suddenly a very large deal. with a fair shot at being president; soon, even, depending when Biden kills Donald.

He's groomed for this and evidently hypocritically. Raw ambition? Marines. Changed name. Hated Trump. etc.
39 years old. Timely feature. I'm more hillbilly than J.D. Vance, bless his heart. I stuck my hand into a patch of stinging nettles for the anti-inflammatory buzz today. It works well if the nettles are a mile away by foot, up a steep hill.

[Meadmaker]

From Fox News:

First lady Jill Biden praises Olympics opening ceremony that mocked Last Supper


I assume it will be completely misleading. It's anoter variation on "opponents do something incredibly outrageous!"

For my part, I don't think that it was very bright to include what they did, and I think it was offensive, but overall, the opening ceremonies were pretty cool, I thought. I wsn't watching TV when they were on, and I haven't seen them end to end, but I've seen highlights. I'm pretty sure that Jill Biden was praising that one minor aspect of the opening ceremonies.

It's a tacktc I'm sick of, and one I have seen practiced by both left and right. It's the "If you praise anything at all that has any offensive content at all, you are obviously endorsing not just the offensive content, but the most offensive possible interpretation of the most offensive condent.

Let's see what the article says:
(read)
The interesting thing, is that she managed to do a rah-rah pro American take on it. She said it was spectacular, but th context was that US needs to do even better when we host the games in 2028, and with the help of Hollywood, she thinks that will be able to do it.


And of course thee Republicans hated it, because everything has to be partisan.

[arthwollipot]

It wasn't even mocking the last supper.

[Meadmaker]

It wasn't even mocking the last supper.

Looking at it, I'm not sure one way or another. There were some obvious similarities, but I don't know if the artists'/author's intent was actually to parody the Last Supper or not.

I think probably it was meant to do so, but if the author would come out and say, "Really, we weren't even thinking about The Last Supper, " I think I would believe him.

The similarities include a central figure who is the center of attention. That central figure has a represtaion of something, which could be a crown or could be a halo or could just be a hair ornament, but it seems very halo-loke to me. Also, all of the figures are behind a table, and some of the poses are kind of like the ones in the painting. (And I know there's no halo on Jesus in Da Vinci's paining)

[stanky]

Too bad. It deserves to be mocked.
iirc, it was more like a between meals snack.
I wonder how one can muster a big appetite for a last meal?

and then they kill you and the poor last meal never even gets digested.
disgusting.

everyone should be mocked incessantly until we're over this thin skin of defensive superiority that's gotten so popular.

[Meadmaker]

I watched a youtube video on the Last Supper controversy that was pretty good at explaining thoughts similar to mine on the subject.

Quick summary:

It was not intended to imitate The Last Supper. Had it not been for the headdress on the woman in the middle, no one would have seen a resemblance.

However, the question came up about when and if the people in charge noticed the resemblance, and what they should have done about it. The auther asked whether they were, in his words, negligent or reckless. Negligent would have been not realizing there was a resemblance. Recklessness would have been realizing it, but not caring. He concludes they were reckless. I'm not so sure. And, depending on how much rehearsal went on, I'm not even sure that it's fair to call it negligent. The resemblance to the painting is not so glaringly obvious that it would have been immediately clear to anyone observing.

I find it interesting that I read several articles and watched a couple o short videos yesterday, all from sources highly critical of the ceremony, (including the one that inspired my inclusion in the "stupid or misleading" category, and not one of them mentioned that the "table" in the skit was meant to represent a catwalk. That's pretty important context.It even offers an explanation for the halo-like headdress. It's a spoof on some of the ridiculous headgear I have seen on catwalk models.

I wouldn't necessarily recommend watchhing the video. It's 12 minutes. However, I will include a link because I mentioned it, and if you are interested in the controversy, I think he does a good job of explaining the various elements.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3xjRcfxVKo

[President Bush]

The entire subject reminds me of this.