Over the weekend, I came across a video on my Facebook newsfeed that many of the people in my network shared. The article as the title explains is about “Judge Napolitano: How to get fired from Fox in under 5 mins”. It contains a video of the five-minute speech he announced on his daily show that is said to have been the reason for the recent decision to no longer be with Fox.
In the five-minute speech, to quickly summarize, he questions every corner of America’s government system, political parties, and social beliefs. In fact it is very interesting and worth watching, providing you with greater insight and his different perspective he elaborates on.
The two things that caught my interest are: the title and the popularity.
It is interesting that the title itself is quite the hook, however I believe it’s the information that is shared in the video that overpowers the message of the title. I believe the journalist who published the article used his morals towards his work. Even though the Judge Napolitano has not provided any information to support or deny the reason for leaving the network, the journalist took it upon himself to make it news that a reporter’s job is put on the line when reporting substantial information that might go against what society and politics have set up for the country. The journalist is not reporting ‘how to get fired from Fox in 5 minutes’, the journalist is reporting the unconventional, innovative ideas that should be shared with the rest of the public.
As for the popularity, it was surprising how many people were sharing the article. I was asking myself why our society cares about how one can lose a job. However, after looking into the article I quickly realized the popularity was not about how to lose a job, it was about spreading the ideas of an individual and inspiring freedom of thought. I personally believe this is a bit conflicting. It is a good technique in grasping the attention of readers, however I do not feel that it is morally just to use a title to simply lure readers. By continuing this technique, this instills a news culture in our society that good news only comes from good titles, which certainly is not correct.
My question is whether reeling in readers with news that is not really the news of the article is morally just or not? Is it okay for society to build off of insignificant titles that are purely meant to lure people in or should journalists title their articles with relevant and concise title that fall in line with the message of the article? Regarding Judge Napolitano, do you think Fox was rightfully just to take the steps they did (supposedly) for his decision to elaborate on his ideas and perspective, questioning our system?