Funny I didn't get spammed when I put this headline out in May 2016: U.S. top court hands narrow win to Spokeo in class action case - Reuters News Vote was 6-2
-
-
Show this thread
-
Or this one in June 2014: U.S. top court issues narrow ruling on software patents - Reuters News Vote was 9-0
Show this thread -
And as
@sam_baker points out, perhaps you remember that "narrow" ruling in which the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage across the United States on a 5-4 vote?Show this thread -
Or maybe those "narrow" rulings that struck down on a 5-4 vote a key part of the Voting Rights Act and upheld Obamacare's individual mandate?
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Yes, correct. But a very small % of the population would be aware of that. If that is the only crowd you want to appeal to, then by all means. Keep treating the overwhelming majority of the population that reads 5-4 to be more narrow than 9-0 to be idiots.(it is btw)
-
If my intended audience(my consumers) were misunderstanding what I meant, I would consider changing the message to be more clear. I certainly would see no need to berate my consumers for a reasonable misunderstanding of my message. But we all operate differently I suppose
-
Hmm so in what way would any of that “expose” so-called political bias?
-
I would say I understand completely why you would think this bc your reading of narrow is reasonable. Then explain what I mean by it. Then in further communications try to change the message to avoid confusion. If interested in appealing to more consumers of course
-
Final version of story is very different to original take:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/u-s-supreme-court-backs-christian-baker-who-rebuffed-gay-couple-idUSKCN1J01WU …
-
It is, and is very good
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Reader blaming. It’s like TOS. They know no one reads past the chyron, and they’re using it to generate views. We do the same thing, we’re just a little more discriminating.
-
You’re walking into the classic ‘it’s their fault for not having enough time’ trap.
-
headlines do not exist in a vacuum. They are justified by the stories themselves. It's a fair criticism if the headline is not backed up by the story
-
So you’re criticizing the medium and not the people who rely on it?
-
This sounds like a trap but I promise it’s not rhetorical
-
Tweet unavailable
-
Been on a hair trigger because of all the ridiculous blowback, and I didn’t even bother to check your rat for context. Entirely my fault.
-
*RT. Dear god apple, please move past 2008.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Didn't regular people, at the time that our country was founded, read and discuss complex ideas like the Federalist Papers, in pubs? We have such ignorance on a broad scale. College graduates who can't understand this concept about what a "narrow" ruling is.pic.twitter.com/olOMoobkfa
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I love you for this.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or... they expose their political bias and willful ignorance by misrepresenting what a "narrow" decision from the Supreme actually means.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.