Comment by krisoft
12 hours ago
Yeah. How did this even pass editing? Is it the article who is misrepresenting what is happening, or the researchers?
12 hours ago
Yeah. How did this even pass editing? Is it the article who is misrepresenting what is happening, or the researchers?
Very few online news sources can be trusted to fact-optimize their headlines these days. Vs. click-, revenue-, or similar metrics. Less-bad sources often put fact-centric subtitles on their articles...but that's not the case here.
That is a sad truth. But it is not just the title. It is the whole article. It talks about giving cash and researching how giving cash works, and quotes the researcher about giving cash. And in one of middle middle paragraphs they just mention that btw we do not give cash. What is the purpose of the research then?
Facts do not trigger emotions, but fake titles like this one does.
Current media works on emotions to drive traffic.
Yes, however...
Notice the wording of that researcher's quote - they are trying to understand things about cash transfers. He does not say that they're doing cash transfers.
And:
> The other half will get additional help from Greater Change, whose support workers will discuss their financial problems then pay for items such as rent deposits, outstanding debts, work equipment, white goods, furniture or new clothes. They do not make direct transfers to avoid benefits being stopped due to a cash influx.
SO - however deceitful The Guardian is being, I'd credit the researchers with honesty here. They're running an imperfect-but-legal experiment, with the gov't's okay & funding, as a work-around for the gov't own bureaucratic rules on cash income reducing benefits.
1 reply →