Is there an agenda behind inflammatory headlines?

2015-07-21T18:08:28-04:00

Are headlines driven by a political agenda to create division in our country and what purpose does this serve? Our country is becoming more polarized by the day. Never in history except for the period of time prior to the Civil War have we seen so much polarization. We are being forced into camps with labels, Conservative, Fundamentalist, Right Wing, Radical .... What is the purpose of polarization? Polarization serves to limit the moderate voice and to take away it's influence. Let's think about what the true agenda is regarding the distribution of polarizing issues from both sides. It's not just the news, someone with a bias picked it as being a headline. Everyone has bias, so our news is filtered through the bias of the distributers. (I'm referring to large network news sources.) We can however correct ourselves and our own reactions. I recommend going beyond reading the headline. Headlines are meant to inflame and drive up readership. Research, listen, and observe so that you may think for yourself and act accordingly. Try your best not to give knee jerk reactions to information releases whether they are true or not. Remember who you are and what you are suppose to represent. An overzealous reaction in either direction can reflect poorly on yourself and your nation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 21 at 2015 6:10 PM

2015-07-21T18:10:07-04:00

I'm afraid so. Please see my photo example.

Response by MSgt Robert Pellam made Jul 21 at 2015 6:26 PM

2015-07-21T18:26:11-04:00

Trying to think of a reply to this. I came up with.

HELL yes!, Amen!, Damn Skippy, Hallelujah, Hoo-rah, and I agree.

Response by COL Mikel J. Burroughs made Jul 21 at 2015 6:29 PM

2015-07-21T18:29:11-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member I read this when it first came out and instead of responding right away, I tried to follow your advice in the discussion. I went back to work, so the message would sink in and then I reread it again. I think you have some very good points about polarization. That is why I usually read an article about two or three times so understand the issue or the real message and try not to have the knee jerk reactions that people have. I think politics are all about creating division among various supporters that are on the edge either way within in a particular party, trying to pull them in one direction or another. The months leading up to the main political party nominations to me is just waves of propaganda. I can tell you that I've starting avoiding politics altogether and listening to them every time something happens in the world or in the United States and they take a position (that I will do this and I will do that). Half the time they forget what they even said. I will get involved toward the end once I see who the main candidates are running for President and Congress, otherwise I will get very disheartened.

Response by Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA made Jul 21 at 2015 6:33 PM

2015-07-21T18:33:34-04:00

If there were no agenda there would be no reason to see it in the news. Where news used to be information, its now selling a point of view (see Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc.).

Response by SSgt Alex Robinson made Jul 21 at 2015 6:34 PM

2015-07-21T18:34:29-04:00

It's done to keep our country divided so that the entrenched powers can stay in power.

Response by PVT Robert Gresham made Jul 21 at 2015 6:38 PM

2015-07-21T18:38:34-04:00

CPT M Cannonie - I believe that "inflammatory headlines" are specifically targeted at those who are otherwise incapable of coming up with their own answers. They are so popular in the news industry, because it is what sells.

So the long and short of it is that, if you allow the media to lead you, and many do, you are basically saying that you choose to abandon your own good sense as to what is right, and what is wrong, and follow the media as your moral compass.

I fully support and agree with your assertion that we should 'go beyond reading the headlines', and "Research, listen, and observe so that you may think for yourself and act accordingly". Well said !!

The news is not necessarily a bad thing, until you come up with a politically motivated news source, whose stories are not shown to independently express the news, but only to spread political rhetoric even when it may lead away from roots grounded in the truth.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 21 at 2015 6:57 PM

2015-07-21T18:57:32-04:00

Headlines have always served to incite the people (to purchase newspapers). Always. Broadcast media has refined the practice to an art form.

If there is a difference it lies in the fact that competition has narrowed with the demise of most major publications, and the broadcast media has joined ranks with the remaining few to proclaim and support just one ideology, that of the Left. The "balance" once afforded by having equals compete in each market is lost. Contrarians have surfaced on independent media and the Left hates it. This is why they want to control the Internet and shut out those who defy them. They want to shut down talk radio because it tends to feature a preponderance of those who speak out against them.

So, yes, America is polarized and only one side had "the big guns" on their side. Is it any wonder then that those who disagree fight more fiercely and appear "overzealous"? It's a canard I hear frequently, leveled at me most often by those who wish I would simply shut up...

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 21 at 2015 6:59 PM

2015-07-21T18:59:26-04:00

First and foremost, remember that the Media does not work for US, they work for themselves. They are a Profit Generating organization. As such, their stories, and more specifically their Headlines are designed to gain customers, and profits.

What is the most effective, and efficient way to do that? Is it through polarization or is it through developing a niche market?

Response by COL Ted Mc made Jul 21 at 2015 7:07 PM

2015-07-21T19:07:39-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member - Captain; Of course there is "an agenda" - in fact there are several.

The first "agenda" is "make the biggest profit".

The second "agenda" is "getting the guys who we think will let us make the biggest profit into power".

The third "agenda" is "stopping people thinking for themselves so that they do what we tell them to do in order to get the guys who we think will let us make the biggest profit into power".

The common thread to all three is, of course, "safeguarding the people, promoting democracy and preserving liberty".

Right?

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 21 at 2015 8:58 PM

2015-07-21T20:58:14-04:00

CPT Private RallyPoint Member, I think it is safe to say that there is an agenda behind every inflammatory headline. My first thoughts drifted to the tabloids first visible to me sometime in the 1980's in grocery story shopping lines. The Weekly World News and The National Enquirer used weird almost-but-not-quite-insane headlines to get people to first pick up the "rag" and then hopefully purchase it. When I was a teenager satirical humor like national Lampoon and Mad Magazine used bizarre headlines to get our attention and make us laugh. These publication thrived in the days before 24-hour-news, cell-phones, internet, blogs, etc.
Over the past 25 years the major and usually less responsible news networks and outlets began to explore less responsible "headlines" to gain market share at first on TV and later on the internet and blogosphere [I think that is a word :-)].
Inflammatory headlines stir up the faithful, incite the opposition, and can be entertaining to those who have a dark sense of humor. Years in the US Army infantry have helped to darken a side of my sense of humor. When I see an inflammatory headline or post I usually first check the source of the information or who or what is reporting it. If the headline is reported by a creditable source I am more likely to read it. I may look at a post from a radical left wing, right wing, homo-file, homo-phobe which is probably now LGBT-file and LGBT-phobe respectively :-)

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 21 at 2015 9:04 PM

2015-07-21T21:04:06-04:00

It's been my experience that sensationalism sells.

Which catches your eye more?

"PRESIDENT HATES HIS COUNTRY, WON'T APPROVE ACTION AGAINST ISIS!!!"
or
"President will not declare war against ISIS"

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Jul 21 at 2015 11:29 PM

2015-07-21T23:29:12-04:00

Headlines are written by news agencies, and news agencies want to sell news thus they make headlines that make people wanna read their crap. It's all about news companies wanting to make money.

Response by LCDR Bruce Cooley made Jul 22 at 2015 1:21 PM

2015-07-22T13:21:37-04:00

I have been led to the conclusion that the major media providers have taken the tack that US Citizens no longer have 'common sense' and need to be 'told' what to believe. To a larger extent, the political parties are no longer trying to reach a broader base because approx. 30% of the voters will vote with a "Party" regardless, and 30% will vote with the other "Party" regardless of position. So.....politicians are aiming at the middle third, and trying to drive a 'wedge' issue in that they think will get them the most 'votes'. Essentially it has come down to 'one issue' voters driving the country instead of 'common sense'. It is enough to drive a person to give up on voting....which is NOT a good idea.