Quartz just published an article with the headline "Even if the US never used a plastic straw🥤 again, it would barely make a dent", and not only is it deeply misleading but it's also indicative of a common "clickbait" trend that I hate.
Too many articles these days deliberately title their articles with eye-catching "morsels" of their driving point. Unfortunately, this leads to a host of consequences:
1️⃣The headline is a gross misrepresentation of the article.
2️⃣Readers will be content to scan the headline without actually reading the piece.
3️⃣It does science a disservice through over-simplification.
Bad headlines can be found all over sci-comm. Personally, I've seen it the most in news reporting on climate change (which I've talked about on this account before) and on space science discoveries. A Mars rover could let out a fart and within 24 hours⏱ we'd see "NASA FINDS EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON MARS" all over the news.
What makes this Quartz article so bad?
It spends 3️⃣ paragraphs undermining the massive plastic straw ban campaign. It even includes a figure saying that "plastic straws account for only around 0.2% of total plastic waste in the United States every year."
In the very LAST sentence, however, the article admits that the plastic straw ban is not a futile effort🤭 and that research shows that public awareness campaigns lead to more sustainable🌎 behaviors. I hate this because they buried the MOST valuable point of the copy into the last sentence in an article that spent 90% of its life devaluing the plastic straw ban. Continued in comments. - 8 hours ago