Headlines, in a way, are what mislead you because bad news is a headline, and gradual improvement is not.
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.
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.
I, perhaps wrongly, assume that people actually read articles that interest them rather than just headlines.
The news media are, for the most part, the bringers of bad news... and it's not entirely the media's fault, bad news gets higher ratings and sells more papers than good news.
Some news managers have been slow to grasp that good television news is always substance over form.
It is human nature to be shortsighted and to lose momentum to make changes once the story is out of the headlines and there aren't financial incentives or political rewards. We owe to ourselves to learn from the past so we can try to do better.
Writing headlines is a specialty - there are outstanding writers who will tell you they couldn't write a headline to save their lives.
Well-reported news is a public good; bad news is bad for everyone.
I'm trying to correct what is wrong in journalism today: wasting users' time.
The worst headline is one that contains a factual error. Bad headlines are ones that are bland, and don't tell the reader anything specific, like 'Democrats at it Again.'