Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#11

Post by jessaustin » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

durzagott wrote: post #4

I'm sure Betteridge's Law could be applied much more effectively to American news headlines than anything else. For example, how many times do we see crazy headlines on Fox News like "Is Obama a gay communist terrorist?"

You only see them if you're watching Fox News.

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#12

Post by desdiv » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:29 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #10

Vaskivo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But answering "no" doesn't mean that, sometimes, the answer to these headline's question isn't "no". It simply means that Betteridge's law isn't always correct. Which I agree because, citing another pop/internet culture adage "only a Sith deals in absolutes".

..which in itself, is an absolute. We've come full circle, here :)

Wow, what a twist.

To think that Obi-Wan is secretly Ian Betteridge.

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#13

Post by rflrob » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 4:58 PM UTC

> We’re going to go out on a limb here and guesstimate that the remaining “maybe” answers can, given enough time and effort, be turned into “yes” or “no” answers, and that these will be distributed similarly to the 20:17 ratio of the fully answered headlines.

The OP does admit to going out on a limb, but I don't think this is a justified assumption. Without having seen the headlines in question, I would guess they are in the maybe category because they are dubious at best.

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#14

Post by matslina » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

rflrob wrote: post #13

> We’re going to go out on a limb here and guesstimate that the remaining “maybe” answers can, given enough time and effort, be turned into “yes” or “no” answers, and that these will be distributed similarly to the 20:17 ratio of the fully answered headlines. The OP does admit to going out on a limb, but I don't think this is a justified assumption. Without having seen the headlines in question, I would guess they ar…

Could be. You can have a look at the headline data here: https://gist.github.com/matslina/64601f39ef12bd653be6

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#15

Post by cratermoon » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 7:15 PM UTC

durzagott wrote: post #4

I'm sure Betteridge's Law could be applied much more effectively to American news headlines than anything else. For example, how many times do we see crazy headlines on Fox News like "Is Obama a gay communist terrorist?"

Indeed that is possibly the main driver for question-type headlines. Any crazy, even libelous, statement can be slipped in if it's worded as a question. The media outlets that rely on them are taking advantage of the biases of their readers, who will, at best, gloss over the text that might say "no", and simply fixate on the question as if it were a valid one. This famously led to the Glenn Beck situation of "We're not saying he's guilty, but he won't deny it!". http://gawker.com/5355901/glenn-beck-pr-genius-spreads-the-f...

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#16

Post by krazydad » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 7:26 PM UTC

durzagott wrote: post #4

I'm sure Betteridge's Law could be applied much more effectively to American news headlines than anything else. For example, how many times do we see crazy headlines on Fox News like "Is Obama a gay communist terrorist?"

I think the law is a commentary on a certain kind of headline: a polar question where the implications would be deeply disturbing if the answer were yes.

Re: Is Betteridge's law of headlines correct?

#17

Post by Dewie » Thu, Mar 19, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC

I don't get it. If you have a headline that forces you to actually read the article to find out what it's talking about, or what the answer is, then people complain about "click bait".

If you use some kind of predictable cliché for your title, then articles like "Is X the new most dangerous thing?" isn't clickbait anymore - it's just "X is not the most dangerous thing (contrary to whatever belief/myth/contemporary opinion)". It's predictable and straightforward. And yet, that's apparently yet another reason for people to complain.