Imagine the following story:
“In recent events, a ferocious fox savagely attacked a Turkey, who fortunately was able to escape to safety by pecking out the fox’s eyes.”
Simple story. A bit gruesome. But, what in today’s news cycle is positive? How can we be better readers of the news when it’s targeted at making us angry?
Foxes and turkeys are highlighted in the news all the time and it’s often the worst of humanity. The goal of many authors is to evict emotion from you so you’ll keep reading. Anger. Fear. Worry. Those keep you hooked.
What’s the author’s motive? Often we have to guess it. Wouldn’t it be nice instead if authors were transparent about why they were writing a story:
- Author 1: I’m a Turkey conservationist with a passion for protecting turkeys from the rampant fox problem we have. Growing up, a Turkey saved my life when I was drowning in a lake.
- Author 2: I’m a narcissist who hates foxes because one time they ate my cat. I really just need therapy, but I can’t fathom talking to anyone about my problems. I want you to be as angry as I am.
- Author 3: I’m here to get promoted and if my boss sees that I have a 10% increase in viewership then our company’s bottom line increases. Im an opportunist who will say anything and take any side that will maximize company profits. How do these three perspectives change the storyline?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could know the author in addition to what the author is writing about? Every article should have not just “about the author” but, “three people’s perspectives about the author’s intent in writing this that know the author well.” Of course, you’d need to verify the three verifiers, but it’d be a start