Do you ever see something that is absolutely horrifying, the implications of which are terrible, and no one else seems to really notice? These two tweets are one of those things for me:
Anyone with a basic understanding of politics is aware that Nazism is separated as a unique political
I’m discussing the headline, and yes I’m aware they’re politicians, headlines conventionally refer to people by the most notable thing about them if they can’t get away with directly naming them and people knowing who they’re talking about.
“A Canadian politician” implies some borderline rando rather than the leader of a major opposition party, which is more concerning than the headline implies
You’re reaching, the headline is hardly doing that, and the article certainly isn’t. Even someone unfamiliar with Canadian political parties and their members couldn’t possibly come away with the impression that Poilievre is a “borderline rando” unless they failed to spend 30 seconds reading that 1/4 essay of a blurb.
The headline is doing exactly that. My first reaction was “of course some asshole is, probably a conservative.” And then I clued into the photo and recognized the buffoon. If I wasn’t a Canadian, or didn’t have the picture, or maybe wasn’t good with faces, I would have scrolled by not realizing the idiot in question iis the leader of the Conservative Party.
A responsible headline would have said that. It might as well have said “A random white guy from Canada is openly spreading propaganda.” I mean it’s a true headline right? Not misleading at all.
Again I’m talking about the headline in isolation, not the rest of the article.
The reason it’s important is that if people do read “borderline rando” rather than “leader of a significant party”, there’s a much greater chance they don’t click and get the extra context