Scoot: Video shows some people judge headlines and not content

Tommy Tucker, WWL First News
December 15, 2017 - 10:18 am

The temptation to quickly label and judge people and issues greatly contributes to the great divide in America today.  From my perspective as a radio talk show host, I am a witness to the collateral damage resulting from this new tendency to judge and form opinions based on a simple headline, or something someone says, rather than taking the time to look beyond the superficial.

Yesterday, on the WWL Radio and the Scoot on the Air (SOTA) Facebook pages, I shot a video to prove my point that many people react to a headline without taking time to look into the content beyond the headlines.  I have noticed posts to many of my daily videos that were obvious reactions to the headline of the video and not what I actually said.  So, I wanted to prove that is exactly what many people do.

I gave the video yesterday a title that might cause people to react to the title alone.  The title was:  “Does President Trump deserve to be in the White House?”  I spent the opening of the video explaining that some people question whether Trump deserves to be in the White House and whether he is mentally stable, but at no time in the 2:20 video did I ever question President Trump’s presence in the White House or his mental ability.  All I said was that some people have asked those questions – which is a fact – not my opinion.  In the video I actually made the point that President Trump deserves to be in the White House because he won the election.  But I never said anything negative about President Trump.

Here are a few of the posts to the video:

From WWL Radio:

 
Paula Fedele Why should wwl continue acting like CNN? Trump has done more for us in 11 months than Obummer and that's wit the judges congress democrats and snow flakes continues to set roadblocks I will vote him n again in. 2020

It appears that Paula was reacting to the headline without reading the video.  That is trolling.

From SOTA:

John Fernandez Thank god for Christmas music now I don’t have to listen to scoot.. what’s he talking about today, well the same thing he talks on every show putting down trump after a while it just gets old.

John, too, appears to be reacting only to the headline and not the content of the video.

And then there were these from people who got it and demonstrated that some people do care about content.

From WWL Radio:

Angela Damico Brading This is true it’s not even funny!!! No one reads for substance. They see a headline, or whoever produced the article and judge based solely off that. You cannot scream fake news when you aren’t even reading it. 

This video literally has nothing to do with trump. You cannot turn something off the second you think someone may say something you don’t agree with. You may miss the opportunity to learn something.

Oh. And WHO DAT!

Charlie Blaize Saints will dominate Sunday at home! 

Good one Scoot!

And this one from the SOTA FB page:

Becky Whorton: Love this video Scoot....am sad to say I too have been guilty of reacting to a question rather than reading or watching....This will make check things first before responding....You can definitely tell those who just responded to the headline. BTW....Saints will be the Saints.

The purpose of the deceiving headline was not to make anyone feel stupid; it was an exercise to demonstrate that hate trumps truth.  The opportunity to condemn someone because of their political ideology is greater than the desire to understand true meaning and this is a sad statement about how deep and instinctive hate is in America.

All I wanted to do was demonstrate something I have seen on social media; too many people will believe what they want to believe over the truth. 

There were a few posts that criticized me for “baiting” the audience.  That was not my intent.  All anyone had to do was show that they were actually interested in content over a headline, but reacting to simply a headline was more in line with that idea that hating on social media has become a recreational sport.

And even if I did bait the audience – when a fisherman uses creative bait to catch a fish – do you criticize the fisherman?  Or, do you applaud the fisherman for catching the fish?

Comments ()