I think you are giving all the click-bait writers far too much of a benefit of doubt. Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that they don't know what they are doing.

They know exactly what they are doing, and what they are doing is creating outrage and profiting from it in this eyeball-click-ad driven journalism economy.

Very few are going to have the wherewithal to forego hundreds or thousands of dollars in ad revenues for the sake of a slightly more gently or fairly worded headline or article. The incentives just do not match up.

Yep, and sadly even major news orgs like CNN are doing this now. Case in point:

"Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo that argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs "

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894904419766108161

"A Google engineer argued that women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs."

https://twitter.com/CNN/status/894951392779141120

This is intentional. It's intended to capture attention from people who will feel a need to argue that the headline misrepresents the content of the memo (which is does).

Then CNN converts that emotionalism and clicks and comments into ad dollars.

It's exactly why the media LOVES any controversial "wedge" issues. They polarize people, and polarized people argue incessantly. And people who are arguing == views and ad dollars.

Or is it intentional by the leaders of CNN to try to side with Google on that case?

That is truly depressing. CNN used to be one of the last places to get non-ideological journalism. Looks like non-partisan journalism really is dead, as is the principle of charity.

Perhaps this might interest you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/65vl4v/cnn_treats...

Sundar Pichai (the CEO) did the same thing in his letter to employees:

"However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. [...] To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."

https://www.blog.google/topics/diversity/note-employees-ceo-...

To those downvoting, this is relevant because it means that CNN is taking its wording from Pichai. It would have been more accurate to say, "Google CEO cuts vacation short to address controversial memo he says argued women aren't biologically fit for tech jobs" -- but one can understand why they just parroted his take on the thing.

It is a different kind of error than Gizmodo labeling the thing an anti-diversity screed.

> Let's dispel once and for all with this fiction that they don't know what they are doing.

> They know exactly what they are doing...

Because you referenced one of the most oft-quoted blunders[1] of Rubio's 2016 primary campaign I can't tell if you're serious or not. It really detracts from the point you're trying to make.

[1] “And let’s dispel once and for all with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.”

Good catch :)

I deliberately referenced it because I wanted to convey that there was nothing implicitly wrong in the wording he (Marco Rubio) used, and that the blunder wasn't specifically about to the wording but the use to which it was put, and that the same wording _can_ be used properly too, as I hoped I did.

It was a blunder because he came across as robotic and overly scripted, reciting it word for word multiple times, even after Christie pointed it out.

People like kinkrtyavimoodh have a couple of catchphrases, which they repeat all the time instead of answering the question. /s

I've said this before, nice username.

I don't necessarily agree. I think a lot of writers probably read it in full and had a sense of its nuance, flaws, and intentions, and still elected to push the juicy and possibly inaccurate headline for their own, and their publications' own gain.

I think we're just at the point where thinkpieces criticizing the initial wave of thinkpieces are now vogue and profitable.

(FWIW, I believe the wave of misleading or negative coverage of this memo is partly the fault of its means of original publication and distribution. Right, wrong, or indifferent, the way in which unorthodox viewpoints are offered to the public can dictate how they're received and interpreted, and this was not "groomed" to be received well, regardless of the merit of its arguments or lack thereof.)

Agree. In my opinion the memo author was definitely hurt by the length of the memo. There's simply not enough fair minded people in the world who have the time to read such a lengthy missive, or folks are just too lazy these days when they are used to consuming their information in 140 characters or less.