The average American news consumer is exposed to far more headline text on news websites, social media apps and content aggregation sites than they are to the prose of the articles themselves. It should be no surprise, then, that more fiat news and missionary behavior exists in headlines than almost anywhere else. It typically gets a pass because, well, the whole job of a headline writer is to summarize what an article is about. But that’s precisely the task that lends itself so perfectly to telling us how we should think about the article. What’s important? What should our conclusions be? How should we feel about it?
I’ll give a free subscription to our free newsletter if you can find the fiat news language in this gem of a headline to a CNN news article.
Here are the companies rushing workers back to the office — and the ones that aren’t [CNN]
Aside from the general observation to take care in our content consumption habits, remember that it is the constant barrage of articles – and headlines – like this that reinforces our belief that the missionaries of the “Work From Home Forever!” narratives are dominating the field, at least in the narrative war.
— Rusty Guinn | June 22, 2021 | 9:58 am
The hyphen in the middle seems to stress that there is a…wait for it…difference between
the companies, as in more than their return to the office policy. Virtue nudging to fill the gap with your priors of Boss v Underdog.
My maxim for the last few years: The headline is the article.
What’s the rush? I bet the companies themselves would say they are simply ‘bringing,’ or even ‘welcoming’ their employees (not ‘workers’) back. That verb choice says it all. That said, also that it’s written as some sort of expose - “here are your culprits, ma’am.”
“companies rushing workers back to the office”
Continue the discussion at the Epsilon Theory Forum