• scholar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    30 days ago

    They reported on it. If you want to say that’s not good enough and that they should have changed their headlines, then fine, but they literally just wrote an entire article about this case of a Sikh woman being attacked because her rapist thought she looked like a Muslim. An article the whole point of which was that someone wanted to rape a Muslim and found the first brown woman he could.

    • AlfalFaFail@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      30 days ago

      I thought your real take away was that I care more about the perpetrator 's intent than their action. So addressed that. Now we’re back to headlines.

      You’re argument is, “People should read the report”. I previously said many if, not most people, read just the headlines. The editors know this. The headlines shape the narrative.

      You are focused on the individual reader’s moral obligation to read more than the headlines.

      Mine is focused on the editor’s social obligation to frame headlines in a way that accurately reflect the article. By neglecting this, they end up shaping the social narrative.

      I’ve said this previously. Have you spent any time with the fundamentals of how social narrative are created?