MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Does Anyone Else Notice How Articles Are...

Does Anyone Else Notice How Articles Are Full of "Pork"

posted 4 years ago by BillHicksFan (10564)
6 replies | jump to latest

I encounter this every day. Even something mundane, such as "Benefits of Drinking a Gallon of Water Every Day". They never get to the heart of the matter, and give us so much bullshit we don't need. There's always a preamble, and every paragraph has to have a "cute" (unfunny) line at the end.

So much is unnecessary.

"I know everyone was sitting on pins and needles to find out this information." (unnecessary)

"But honestly, if you've ever seen an NJ Transit bathroom before, you wouldn't want to need to pee while on a train either." (this bullshit)

Geez, just get to the fucking point and spare us your bullshit.

[–] BillHicksFan (10564) 4 years ago

At the end of that "article", I was astounded to read

Ana Suarez is the senior commerce editor for Hearst Newspapers. She is always on the hunt for good sales, but really, she just won't shut up about her senior dog, Tyrone.

HEARST Newspapers? Senior Commerce Editor?

(I wish SHE would shut up, and let her senior dog, Tyrone, do the talking for her)

[–] jonathan_k80 (6436) 4 years ago

These "articles" lack substance because they are designed that way. The headlines are interesting enough to get people to click on the story. Then they can bombard the readers with ads. It's the ads, not the stories, that are the primary objective here.

And I am sick to death of these people and their stupid dogs.

[–] PaladinNJ (21510) 4 years ago

Bingo.

Except the dog part. Dogs are great animals.

[–] BillHicksFan (10564) 4 years ago

True, but its not just the trivial stuff - that just happened to be the thing I was reading last.

It could be about politics. "Why Universal Basic Income Works Best", and you'll read a ton of garbage, and maybe two lines of substance that really addresses the topic.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 4 years ago

Yeah, news nowadays are bullshit! I'd stick to news articles from 1930-1970 only.

[–] ThatDogIsALiar (250) 4 years ago

When all that is needed for ad revenue is a curious click, it makes sense that there would be a lot of easy B.S. non-content.

Hell, if I could program an algorithm to load up rehashed remixed content gathered from the web, make and submit template style ads automatically, and the money would just passively go into an account with minimal overhead expense, then I would do it. If someone clicks, oh well, they lost a few moments of time.

Basically profiting from creating a minor inconvenience. If anything, it's more like taking candy from a baby, as the advertisers are the ones putting up the actual money.