When Maggie Haberman tweeted about her latest piece on Hillary Clinton, several of us on Twitter called her on the lead in to her article in her tweet. See the tweet below:
Clinton, a former Goldwater Girl-turned-liberal in the '60s, is running for office at a moment of deep anger http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/08/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-takes-on-civil-rights-generation-gap.html?referrer=&_r=0 …
Perhaps, Haberman was looking for Retweets or for someone to read the article. But, is it really fair to use a stance that someone took in HIGH SCHOOL to get clicks on your writing? Who among us is the same person politically or philosophically that we were in high school. To tag an article about Hillary Clinton in that way seems to imply that changing ones views is a bad thing.
Haberman took exception to the critique by asking if we'd actually read her piece. Well, yes, indeed we did. It was basically a good article. So why bring up Clinton's high school learning experience to boost readership of her article? A good piece of journalism can stand on its own merits, I believe.
The truth of the matter is that most folks only see the lead in to a tweet or the headline on an article. They don't stop and read what follows. That's why it is VITAL in journalism to accurately tag your work.
After reading the article, it was clear the Goldwater girl remark had NOTHING to do with her article. Her article was about Hillary Clinton's exchange with the #BlackLivesMatter people who attended her speech in New Hampshire.
I think journalists can do better and I believe we, the readers/consumers, need to hold their feet to the fire when we see them falter.
No comments:
Post a Comment