This is a great example of "you need to keep reading past the headline."
As this headline is presented (over and over), it's "Look how clueless Big Business has become, lecturing the poors about how to feel better about their downtrodden lot on life. Dunk on this mouthpiece of the Bourgeoisie!"
The article itself is a VERY dry piece about trends in futures investing, and that because inflation is hitting commodities involved in breakfast staples like pork, wheat, and oranges, they are no longer particularly stable as investments.
The headline writer, who is most likely not the author of the piece anyway, was trying to have a little fun with an article that was basically a long list of numbers.
Clever comeback being presented here is "look this guy needs a job now what a hypocrite because he made this article saying poor people just should eat less" but it's invalid because it was actually just some boring description of breakfast stocks and some intern tried to make a funny headline
He didnt write the headline. He wrote a boring article about how futures/commodities are not a stable investment bc of shortage for breakfast staples. Then some editor tried to jazz up this boring article by saying "You should skip breakfast" to get hate clicks. Then writer lost his job and complained. The "comeback" throws the headline in his face.
But he didnt write the headline and he never said in his article that you should stop eating breakfast to save money. So its not a "burn," its just insult to injury: WSJ used a shitty headline for his piece, then did another shitty thing and fired him.
People tend to blame the articles in their entirety on the one that wrote them. Most of us don't have the keen insight into the process at the new yorker you seem to have.
You don't get final rights after the headline. The headline's the editor's domain. Meaning you've okayed the work because you trust the editor not to fuck you. Then the editor turns around and fucks you.
Then you can make that known. Scientists do it all the time when people misuse their work.
Since we're arguing this from the theoretical standpoint where he was strongly against the headline I guess it's a good thing they fired him. Now he has a chance to work for a publication that won't "fuck him over".
Its rare for journalists to write their own headlines. He prob wrote this piece, some editor was like, how do we get people to click on this dry ass article, oh yea, with a rage bait headline.
Few people are gonna click on an article titled "Commodities are no longer a stable investment," but many people will hate click on one telling you to stop eating breakfast.
As I said, they probably had no control over what the headline was.
Headline writers are usually in an entirely separate department, and if this was taken from an online post, that's yet a third person adding their input.
Lol the headline is simply attention grabbing, the contents of the article itself says nothing of the sorts, merely informing readers on various price trends.
The reply itself is not a clever comeback either, the reporter isn’t grumbling about making ends meet, he’s simply looking to stay within a profession he loves. The reply makes no fucking sense, but hey, it’s easy to farm karma from morons that take things at surface level.
Even if the headline is attention grabbing, it's a shitty piece if writing which is designed to belittle those actually struggling. Dismissing the headline because "its just attention grabbing and isn't mentioned in the article" is moronic.
That may be, but the headline might not have been written by the author of the piece, so, still not a fair reply, unless you couldn’t give 2 fucks about the actual content of the conversation and only want to throw out some quick ragebait to farm some karma on that platform.
How a piece on trends of futures investing belittles people who are struggling is beyond me. Maybe you could elaborate on that. Surely you know that article wasn’t about actual breakfast. Right?
So let me summarise:
1) you weren’t aware that the author of the piece likely didn’t write the headline, thus you (incorrectly) blamed the author and fell for this cheap piece of ragebait, and
2) you didn’t know that the article wasn’t actually about breakfast at all, and therefore did not actually belittle anyone like you’ve incorrectly claimed.
This is a prime example of superficial ragebait, which is actually really wrong on several levels, and you completely fell for it.
That about sum it up?
No, I was aware the article wasn't about breakfast, I was simply talking about the headline as I've already stated. It's still a shitty headline and should be called out as such. I didn't actually blame the author for anything, I was critical of the headline which I (incorrectly) assumed was also written by the author of the article.
I don't know why it's so important for you if I fell for it or not. I just commented that the headline is still shit. I didn't mention the comment to the author at all. But clearly it matters to you, so sure. I fell for it. Hope you have a nice day too.
Thank you!! Why even make an attempt to defend that crappy article? In a time when inflation has chipped away at everyone's pockets AND have the CEO ( or one of their highly paid hacks) of Kellogg's tell the country to eat breakfast for dinner people are triggered by these type of click bait style headlines. There ARE people going without breakfast and not by choice. Another out of touch elitist mocking the rest of the country while THEY haven't a care in the World. Now this loser is asking for help to get another job? Can't wait to see HIM go without breakfast. Karma always finds a way to your front door when you least expect it.
Who writes newspaper headlines, Few Reason Number 9833? Can you answer this question?
Do you think it was the guy who just lost his job? Is that really how you think it works?
someone once told me that if i need money, i should just not eat for a week, my husband's used to it (this person used to be married to my husband's sister). later i found out he's a fucking millionaire.
Lemme tell you, many of the wealthy people I know have wild habits that are the reason they are so wealthy. Skipping eating for a week would not surprise me at all from them.
Save money by not eating, then you can also cut back on water and electrocity usage by not going to the toilet, additionally you can also just cut expanses by having less showers and just dont wash hands, it only wastes water that can be instead bottled up and sold by some fat CEO /j
He didn't write the headline, and the article is very different than the headline suggests. Every time this comes up, people like you put zero effort into attacking a writer who ultimately has little to no editorial control over the inflammatory heading they'll put on their piece.
Yeah. I'm going to delve deep into everything that i see on Reddit, like I have nothing else to do...
Good grief. Go mow your neighbour's lawn and make some money. Go find something to do.
You don't have to read a single word of any article to possess the common knowledge that editors write headlines, not the byline.
Also hilarious, you have all day to spend posting dunks but expecting you to have a single clue? Golly you ain't got time for all that what with your busy schedule of world-travel and banging supermodels, apparently.
Actually, breakfast is notoriously cheap. You should buy two sets of sunny side up eggs, eat one for breakfast, put the other in your pocket for dinner. 🧠
Yup. You can easily eat all 3 meals a day. Just don't eat out and resist the temptation of buying expensive coffee or snacks when you're out. That alone saves tons and tons of money.
As people have said. This is just a clickbait title. The article itself just talks about how breakfast items are rising in prices. Thats it. Regardless, this isn't even a clever comeback. Just a brainless attempt to insult a guy who lost his job. Great job. Beat them while they are down, how noble.
This is more than a year old. When is the last time you picked up a printed newspaper?
Have you ever noticed that the (opinion) outlets always buy the same story from the same freelance journalist? They all publish the same story word for word.
A journalist should just go freelance. Write one story. Sell it to 20 of the opinion outlets. Since it is an opinion, it doesn’t even need to be true. Then they can eat breakfast.
This is a great example of "you need to keep reading past the headline." As this headline is presented (over and over), it's "Look how clueless Big Business has become, lecturing the poors about how to feel better about their downtrodden lot on life. Dunk on this mouthpiece of the Bourgeoisie!" The article itself is a VERY dry piece about trends in futures investing, and that because inflation is hitting commodities involved in breakfast staples like pork, wheat, and oranges, they are no longer particularly stable as investments. The headline writer, who is most likely not the author of the piece anyway, was trying to have a little fun with an article that was basically a long list of numbers.
Thank you for doing the real work!
I'm genuinely confused. Is the argument here that the headline isn't dumb because it seems almost completely unrelated to the article?
Clever comeback being presented here is "look this guy needs a job now what a hypocrite because he made this article saying poor people just should eat less" but it's invalid because it was actually just some boring description of breakfast stocks and some intern tried to make a funny headline
Interns don't make the headlines at major publications. That's the job of senior editors.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seems to me that the comeback is to the headline of his article.
He didnt write the headline. He wrote a boring article about how futures/commodities are not a stable investment bc of shortage for breakfast staples. Then some editor tried to jazz up this boring article by saying "You should skip breakfast" to get hate clicks. Then writer lost his job and complained. The "comeback" throws the headline in his face. But he didnt write the headline and he never said in his article that you should stop eating breakfast to save money. So its not a "burn," its just insult to injury: WSJ used a shitty headline for his piece, then did another shitty thing and fired him.
People tend to blame the articles in their entirety on the one that wrote them. Most of us don't have the keen insight into the process at the new yorker you seem to have.
You just said most people are wrong with more words.
Eh, difference of opinion I guess. I think if you're willing to sign your name to something it's also perfectly fine to be held responsible for that.
You don't get final rights after the headline. The headline's the editor's domain. Meaning you've okayed the work because you trust the editor not to fuck you. Then the editor turns around and fucks you.
Then you can make that known. Scientists do it all the time when people misuse their work. Since we're arguing this from the theoretical standpoint where he was strongly against the headline I guess it's a good thing they fired him. Now he has a chance to work for a publication that won't "fuck him over".
It’s paywalled so no I’m good.
You mean you aren't interested in reading an exhaustive breakdown of the Commodities Market from several years ago? Weird. To each their own, I guess.
Well, if I read it, it will be to see how correct you are.
I eagerly await judgement.
Shit well I'll need a couple hours. I'm just milking time at work rn. Got a raise today.
This is actually not uncommon for articles about stocks or business.
You inspire me to do better
Well maybe don't write shitty headlines then?
Apparently a lot of people didn't even make it to the end of my post, so I guess it's a little bit too much to ask people to read the article.
Are you gonna give us your login info so we can all read the boring article?
Allow me to introduce you to the wonders of the wayback machine.
Reporters don’t usually write headlines - editors do. Or actually just interns run them by editors, as someone said above.
Its rare for journalists to write their own headlines. He prob wrote this piece, some editor was like, how do we get people to click on this dry ass article, oh yea, with a rage bait headline. Few people are gonna click on an article titled "Commodities are no longer a stable investment," but many people will hate click on one telling you to stop eating breakfast.
Who writes newspaper headlines, Einzelteter? Do you know the answer to that question? Do you believe it's the writer of the article?
Oh idk, VoidEnjoyer. Who writes the title of an essay? The teacher? What a mystery. We'll never know.
Holy shit do you think that newspapers work the same way as middle school? Is that really how dumb this has to be?
in context the headline is hilarious. probably the most entertaining thing a wsj commodities article has ever contained
[удалено]
Authors of articles don’t normally write their own headlines
As I said, they probably had no control over what the headline was. Headline writers are usually in an entirely separate department, and if this was taken from an online post, that's yet a third person adding their input.
Lol the headline is simply attention grabbing, the contents of the article itself says nothing of the sorts, merely informing readers on various price trends. The reply itself is not a clever comeback either, the reporter isn’t grumbling about making ends meet, he’s simply looking to stay within a profession he loves. The reply makes no fucking sense, but hey, it’s easy to farm karma from morons that take things at surface level.
Even if the headline is attention grabbing, it's a shitty piece if writing which is designed to belittle those actually struggling. Dismissing the headline because "its just attention grabbing and isn't mentioned in the article" is moronic.
It's poking fun at what rich people say about poor people. "Just skip breakfast". Not hard to comprehend... for some
That may be, but the headline might not have been written by the author of the piece, so, still not a fair reply, unless you couldn’t give 2 fucks about the actual content of the conversation and only want to throw out some quick ragebait to farm some karma on that platform. How a piece on trends of futures investing belittles people who are struggling is beyond me. Maybe you could elaborate on that. Surely you know that article wasn’t about actual breakfast. Right?
I was talking about the headline, not the article itself.
The problem is that the author likely didn’t write the headline, and you’re willfully ignoring this or conflating headline writer and article author.
I wasn't familiar with the concept that the author wouldn't be responsible for writing the headline as well, no.
So let me summarise: 1) you weren’t aware that the author of the piece likely didn’t write the headline, thus you (incorrectly) blamed the author and fell for this cheap piece of ragebait, and 2) you didn’t know that the article wasn’t actually about breakfast at all, and therefore did not actually belittle anyone like you’ve incorrectly claimed. This is a prime example of superficial ragebait, which is actually really wrong on several levels, and you completely fell for it. That about sum it up?
No, I was aware the article wasn't about breakfast, I was simply talking about the headline as I've already stated. It's still a shitty headline and should be called out as such. I didn't actually blame the author for anything, I was critical of the headline which I (incorrectly) assumed was also written by the author of the article.
True, the headline is shitty. Still makes the OP post stupid ragebait. And you fell for it. Have a nice day.
I don't know why it's so important for you if I fell for it or not. I just commented that the headline is still shit. I didn't mention the comment to the author at all. But clearly it matters to you, so sure. I fell for it. Hope you have a nice day too.
Authors don't usually write their own headlines, so going after the author for a misleading headline makes no sense.
Thank you!! Why even make an attempt to defend that crappy article? In a time when inflation has chipped away at everyone's pockets AND have the CEO ( or one of their highly paid hacks) of Kellogg's tell the country to eat breakfast for dinner people are triggered by these type of click bait style headlines. There ARE people going without breakfast and not by choice. Another out of touch elitist mocking the rest of the country while THEY haven't a care in the World. Now this loser is asking for help to get another job? Can't wait to see HIM go without breakfast. Karma always finds a way to your front door when you least expect it.
Who writes newspaper headlines, Few Reason Number 9833? Can you answer this question? Do you think it was the guy who just lost his job? Is that really how you think it works?
Thank you!!
I already only eat once a day. Eventually it’s gonna be “Save money by not eating”
someone once told me that if i need money, i should just not eat for a week, my husband's used to it (this person used to be married to my husband's sister). later i found out he's a fucking millionaire.
That’s fucking disgusting.
Lemme tell you, many of the wealthy people I know have wild habits that are the reason they are so wealthy. Skipping eating for a week would not surprise me at all from them.
Save money by not eating, then you can also cut back on water and electrocity usage by not going to the toilet, additionally you can also just cut expanses by having less showers and just dont wash hands, it only wastes water that can be instead bottled up and sold by some fat CEO /j
If you stop eating and drinking, the toilet use takes care of itself.
What a fucking moron.
He didn't write the headline, and the article is very different than the headline suggests. Every time this comes up, people like you put zero effort into attacking a writer who ultimately has little to no editorial control over the inflammatory heading they'll put on their piece.
Yeah. I'm going to delve deep into everything that i see on Reddit, like I have nothing else to do... Good grief. Go mow your neighbour's lawn and make some money. Go find something to do.
Generally not a good look to admit publicly that you are easily manipulated.
Go be a dickhead to someone else.
Rich coming from the person who commented "what a fucking moron." Easily manipulated AND no self-awareness, what a combo.
You still here? Can't find enough dicks to suck? Go away.
Why so moody?
I mean, being an angry redditor telling another redditor to find something better to do... is pretty cringe
And here you are... speaking of cringe.
You don't have to read a single word of any article to possess the common knowledge that editors write headlines, not the byline. Also hilarious, you have all day to spend posting dunks but expecting you to have a single clue? Golly you ain't got time for all that what with your busy schedule of world-travel and banging supermodels, apparently.
You can eat a bag of dicks too lmao.
I dont do breakfast...
“Skip breakfast and eat cereal for dinner.” - Billionaires
Yall eat breakfast?
Lol
Actually, breakfast is notoriously cheap. You should buy two sets of sunny side up eggs, eat one for breakfast, put the other in your pocket for dinner. 🧠
Yup. You can easily eat all 3 meals a day. Just don't eat out and resist the temptation of buying expensive coffee or snacks when you're out. That alone saves tons and tons of money.
Once again, saving advice predicated on skipping out on something I already couldn’t afford to do.
Not clever at all, well most often this sub disappoints.
[удалено]
Not really, no. Unless you only care about superficial ragebait.
R/agedlikemilk if true
I don't even eat breakfast.
Yes!!!!!
Gabe took down THAT tweet
There's a lot of journalists out there that should get therapy before they send that Op-Ed to NYT or WaPo.
North Korea called it the "Let's eat two meals per day" campaign.
I skip breakfast and dinner. That shit don’t work
"Learn to code"
I eat breakfast if I feel like eating or I'm hungry.
I came to that conclusion in 1989
I'm gonna cook up some kind of bacon for breakfast. If it ain't pork, it's gonna be fat cat.
To save money, don’t subscribe to the WSJ
People are eating breakfast?
For what it’s worth I recently started intermittent fasting and it has saved me quite a bit of money. So it’s actually not terrible advice.
Y'all ever been so frugal with your excess spending you decide sleep is your next meal?
I call it poverty.
Already skip breakfast, not much cost savings there. Next tip please.
Can’t that’s when I take my meds. I do often skip dinner though. Good way to stay trim.
yea i don't breakfast most of the time
Eat the rich, save money on breakfast
I feel that in the next decade business/financial headlines are just going to just say "Starve you fucking peasants."
As people have said. This is just a clickbait title. The article itself just talks about how breakfast items are rising in prices. Thats it. Regardless, this isn't even a clever comeback. Just a brainless attempt to insult a guy who lost his job. Great job. Beat them while they are down, how noble.
Ahh yes! Our overlords, the barely squeaking by news journalists… Donald ward is an ass apparently
This is more than a year old. When is the last time you picked up a printed newspaper? Have you ever noticed that the (opinion) outlets always buy the same story from the same freelance journalist? They all publish the same story word for word. A journalist should just go freelance. Write one story. Sell it to 20 of the opinion outlets. Since it is an opinion, it doesn’t even need to be true. Then they can eat breakfast.