This sort of inclusion in a news article is pointless and maddening:
This has created a storm of criticism against this TV pundit known for her strong and often extreme opinions, but more than 11,000 people have pressed the “Like” button for this blog article on [Dingleface].
Well, sure, but worldwide, I’m certain you could easily find 11,000 people who would “Like” the idea of smashing your own thumb with a hammer, or feeding ground glass to dinner guests, or dropping toddlers off in the centre of a highway at naptime. Why not instead tell the truth?
This has created a storm of criticism against this TV pundit known for her strong and often extreme opinions, but, unsurprisingly, more than 11,000 trolls and/or mentally ill people enthusiastically supported her as they sat in mostly dark, unkempt rooms, mostly in their pants, in another of their series of feeble attempts to be noticed by someone…anyone. Such is the world.
The great majority of media outlets seem to believe that antisocial media totals gathered at filing time make their stories more relevant, maybe more in tune with the younger demographic, but these might-as-well-be-random numbers only make the articles more superficial and trivial. They’re the news equivalent of packing peanuts, but a little less so: They’re light, fluffy, and perhaps useful as filler when one needs to reach that word count, but in the long run, they will not protect the media jobs within.
Sadly, this is not new. I recall many media stories over the years where the reporter chose to ask the opinion of a young child on a topic that was well beyond the child’s comprehension: “How old are you Susie?” “Uh, seven and a half, umm…” “What do you think about the pardon of President Nixon?” “Umm… (looks at mom) …he was a bad man.”
Journalism at its best.