I, perhaps wrongly, assume that people actually read articles that interest them rather than just headlines.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Headlines are so great in a sense that they can take a little bit from an article completely out of context and blow it into something it's not. Some people really only read headlines.
I read a lot of news online, but I like buying a paper because I'll read an article I wouldn't normally read. And more often than not, the articles that you don't expect to care about are the ones that grab you.
Headlines, in a way, are what mislead you because bad news is a headline, and gradual improvement is not.
It's no longer just reporting the headlines of the day, but trying to put the headlines into some context and to add some perspective into what they mean.
People everywhere confuse what they read in newspapers with news.
Writing headlines is a specialty - there are outstanding writers who will tell you they couldn't write a headline to save their lives.
Speaking generally, people who are drawn to journalism are interested in what happens from the ground up less than they are from the top down.
In general, I think very few people have a sustained interest in news.
I think the press has an interest in communicating to its viewers or readers, and their viewers or readers drive profit for those news organizations, so I think those news organizations have a certain bias toward their own readers. Yeah, I think they are a special interest. Of course they are.
It is grievous to read the papers in most respects, I agree. More and more I skim the headlines only, for one can be sure what is carried beneath them quite automatically, if one has long been a reader of the press journalism.