 |
|
|
|||||
The job of a headline is to draw attention to the article beneath it. When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby. The New York Times, which remains among the worlds load-bearing newspapers, has published plenty of stories in 2025 with that rogue carnival barker vibe. Why is someone screaming this at me? would be a natural response to headlines like Did Women Ruin the Workplace? which NYT ran earlier this month, inspiring an apoplectic backlash that forced editors to change it to the only-slightly better Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?. Since that controversial header is one of many quickly corrected misfires from the Paper of Record this year, maybe something else is going on beyond avant-garde attention-grabbing. Its nothing new for New York Times headlines to undergo embarrassing post-publication edits, presumably after someone got yelled at. What feels different now is that headline debacles appear to be arriving more regularly in the second Trump termand nearly as often on the News side as on the Opinion side, despite each division having its own separate editors. Even longtime media critics like the NYT Pitchbot account on social media agree this has been a particularly cursed year for NYT headlines. The question is: To what end? Headline mismatch Sometimes, a headline is bending like a tortured circus contortionist to avoid stating the obvious. A recent News story offered the phrase Blending family and governance to describe Donald Trump enriching himself through business ventures while being the actual president. A froth of piping hot internet outrage swiftly followed. NYT then changed the headline to Trump Organization Is Said to Be in Talks on a Saudi Government Real Estate Deal, which sounds blessedly less like a story about finding innovative business loopholes for presidents. Corruption at unprecedented levels with a murderous regime, a mark of totalitarian fascism but: "Blending family and governance" makes it sound like a harmless avocation. #BrokenTimes— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) 2025-11-15T23:18:25.948Z The Times has this problem where they are afraid to say things frankly, says the anonymous person behind the long-running X and Bluesky account, NYT Pitchbot, which regularly mocks the framing of stories in NYT and The Washington Post. Other times, the headline might be at odds with the story its hyping up. Amid ongoing revelations about the extent to which Jeffrey Epstein claimed Trump knew about his sex trafficking empire, a News story from last week took an arch tone in describing the fallout from recently unearthed Epstein emails and the broad, powerful network of people with which Epstein held sway. It was then saddled with the unfortunate headline Epstein Emails Reveal a Lost New York, which provoked a digital jetspray of bile on social media. Judging from the headline, one might reasonably conclude it was a wistful lament for a golden age of sex crimes in the city. (It was later changed to Epstein Emails Reveal a Bygone Elite.) NYT: We Miss the Old, Rapey New York, Before Our Favorite Financiers Becane Disgraced— Keith Decent (@keithdecent.bsky.social) 2025-11-16T16:33:33.821Z That "clubby" NYT headline is awful, but the piece itself is clear-eyed & observant, if cool in tone it's by a strong writer & it documents the creepy, backpatting insider world of guys griping about MeToo as it happens. The NYT is always doing this! If the hed was different, the piece wd be legit— Emily Nussbaum (@emilynussbaum.bsky.social) 2025-11-16T17:17:45.491Z Over on the Opinion side, plenty of headlines seem expressly designed as ragebait, practically begging Bluesky users to screenshot them into viral infamy. (More so than usual, even.) The same week readers were greeted with Did Women Ruin the Workplace, for instance, one of the writers credited with that piece authored a column bearing the headline Mamdanis Victory is Less Significant Than You Think. That headline arrived the morning after Zohran Mamdanis win in New Yorks mayoral race, before anyone could credibly claim special knowledge about its significance or lack thereof. It did not go down smoothly online, which felt like the entire point. He actually lost by winning— Molly Knight (@mollyknight.bsky.social) 2025-11-05T14:47:02.508Z we can chalk it up to youth and inexperience but the biggest mistake the mamdani campaign made was winning by 8.8% and not 1.5%, which is the margin needed for the media to say its a total mandate— andy (@andylevy.net) 2025-11-05T14:25:22.439Z With headlines like these being a predictable pattern this year, in both News and Opinion, its no wonder the Times is so easily memeable. Social media users are forever fixing the papers headlinesa genre of dunk even the White House oafishly attempted earlier this year. A growing trend When an NYT headline is especially galling, followers of the NYT Pitchbot account tend to tag its creatoreither to make sure hes seen the offending headline, or to suggest a past NYT Pitchbot post may have willed it into existence. According to the person who runs the account, this year has been heavy on such occasions. Even bigger than Did Women Ruin the Workplace was Charlie Kirk Was Doing Politics the Right Way,” the anonymous creator tells Fast Company, describing the headline of an Ezra Klein op-ed NYT ran the morning after the polarizing MAGA influencer was killed. [It was] the worst ever. That had the biggest response from my readers that I have ever seen. Although the person behind NYT Pitchbot claims The Washington Post generates more forehead-slapper headlines than the Times these days, at least theres a simple explanation for that lapse. In the leadup to Trumps electoral victory in 2024, owner Jeff Bezos pulled the papers planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, and hes since announced sweeping changes to the opinion section, giving it a more Trump-friendly bent. Amid an exhaustive exodus of talented writers, one remaining columnist recently boasted, Were now a conservative opinion page. But whats the New York Times excuse for producing headlines that seem scientifically engineered to cause a nuclear meltdown on Bluesky? Traffic watch One possible explanation is that the editors are indeed aiming for maximum outrage. A hate-share gets just as much as much traffic as any other kind, after all, and modern media incentives heavily favor the pot-stirring headlines NYT keeps cooking up. I think that they think the dumb headlines encourage people to click through, adds the creator of NYT Pitchbot. Its hard to argue with the strategys apparent success. Theres only so many times one can see the same screenshot of a headline furiously posted online before clicking to find out whether the outrage is warranted or overblown. (Your mileage may vary.) If the explanation is as simple as clicks-at-all-costs, though, its truly a sorry state of affairs for the world. The New York Times is still the crown jewel of legacy media, with all the authority and hefty subscriber base that come with it. If even the upper echelon of journalism is subject to the whims of algo-bait, SEO sorcery, and dying digital readership, what chance does any publication have? As TikTokers, substackers and AI podcasters map out the future of newsand the president attempts to hold dominion over itlegacy media has a responsibility to stay tethered to an era of concise language and a shared reality in its stories and their packaging. In 2025, NYT has too often fallen short of that low bar. When a headline describes the anti-vaxx Secretary of Health as hitting his stride just days after a second Texas child died from a disease the U.S. officially eliminated 25 years ago, its failing its readers. When a headline uses Trump says to uncritically pass along the presidents preferred framing, it feels like capitulation. And when a headline grossly underplays the gravity of a U.S. president threatening his political enemies with death, its practically daring him to give it a go. In a recent piece, the NYT editorial board used 12 metrics to illustrate that the U.S. is well on its way to becoming an autocracy. If the News editors who contributed to that piece believe its findings, they might agree this moment urgently demands political, scientific, and moral clarity. If the Opinion editors also believe our democracy is backsliding, they might admit its the worst possible moment to ask regressive questions about women in the workplace for hate-clicks, something they likely wouldnt have done just a year or two ago. In the meantime, both groups seem to be ushering in a world where the New York Times continued existence is less significant than you think.
Category:
E-Commerce
A wave of vital prescription drugs is about to get a lot cheaper for people on Medicare. The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it has successfully negotiated lower prices for 15 drugs, including medications used for asthma, diabetes, arthritis and multiple forms of cancer. The list includes Ozempic and Wegovy, Novo Nordisks drugs for Type 2 diabetes and weight management, as well as Rybelsus, Novos oral GLP-1 for treating diabetes. The deal for cheaper prescription drugs grew out of an initiative put in place by the Inflation Reduction Act, the signature legislative package passed in 2022 during the Biden administration. That law opened the door for Medicare to negotiate drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. The first wave of those negotiations happened last year, when the Biden administration secured pricing for 10 prescription drugs, including diabetes drug Januvia, arthritis drug Enbrel and Eliquis, which is used for blood clots. Many of the drugs the federal government wanted to make cheaper have life-saving applications. The new round of 15 drugs with lower prices came out of negotiation through that same process rather than Trumps Most-Favored-Nation plan to lower prescription drug prices through executive action and direct pressure on drug makers. Earlier this month, the Trump administration secured a separate deal to lower the price of drugs like Novo Nordisks Wegovy and Eli Lillys Zepbound in exchange for three years of tariff relief. That deal will also reduce costs for people who want to buy weight loss drugs directly out of pocket. Whether through the Inflation Reduction Act or President Trumps Most Favored Nation policy, this is what serious, fair, and disciplined negotiation looks like, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Director Chris Klomp said in a press release. New pricing under the deal reflects the prices Medicare will pay drug companies, not what consumers will pay to fill their prescriptions. Under the new terms, Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy drop from $959 for a 30-day supply to $274, while Trelegy Ellipta, an asthma inhaler, drops from $654 to $175. The full list of renegotiated drug prices is available on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services website. Trump officials clash over GLP-1s In a press release, even Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr praised the new drug prices. Kennedys public support for the drug deal suggests that he has fallen in line behind Trump, who wants to make GLP-1 drugs available to more Americans. Kennedy is famously opposed to weight-loss drugs like Ozempic and has made misleading statements about them in the past, including the false claim that Novo Nordisk doesnt market its own drugs in its home country of Denmark. Theyre counting on selling it to Americans because were so stupid and so addicted to drugs, Kennedy said in an interview he shared on Instagram last year. Kennedy sang a different tune in the announcement from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, vowing to use every tool at our disposal to make healthcare more affordable for seniors. President Trump directed us to stop at nothing to lower health care costs for the American people, Kennedy said. Historically, Medicare cant legally cover the cost of drugs prescribed solely for weight loss, but the Trump administration is pushing to get around those rules something the Biden administration also pursued. While the nations top health official has reservations about prescription weight loss drugs being made available to more people, most Americans dont share that view. A survey last year from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 61% of adults think Medicare should cover the cost of GLP-1 drugs for people wishing to lose weight.
Category:
E-Commerce
Discussions around the role of work in our lives are frequently divided into two camps. Do what you love and youll never work a day in your life, one side proclaims. The other: A job just needs to pay the bills. The first school of thought is an example of intrinsic motivation. Here, the enjoyment of work for works sake is motivating enough, rather than relying on external rewards like money or praise. And while its great to love your job, recent research suggests that it can become problematic when intrinsic motivation is regarded as morally superior to other motivations. When a neutral preference becomes charged with moral meaning, social scientists call it moralization, Mijeong Kwon, assistant professor of management in organizational behavior at Rice Business, recently wrote for The Conversation. Once intrinsic motivation becomes moralized, loving what you do is seen as not only enjoyable but virtuous. A 2023 study co-authored by Kwon found that those who saw intrinsic motivation as virtuous, also looked down upon other common motives, such as money or recognition. So deeply embedded in the consciousness of the American workforce is the idea that its not enough to just have a job, you must also love that job. If you dont define yourself by your professional achievement, it must, therefore, be a sign of something lacking. While there are many benefits to being intrinsically motivated, there are also downsides to placing moral value on this way of working. Most jobs (yes, even the ones we love) include long stretches of tedious work or less enjoyable tasks. When intrinsic motivation becomes a moral imperative, workers may feel guilty for not springing out of bed eager to get to the office each day. It can also lead to burnout or result in staying too long in an unsuitable role while overlooking other important life needs, like making sure the bills get paid. Theres also the fact that many workers will never experience this type of love for their job. This isnt a moral failure; its a fact of life. Yet, researchers found those who moralize intrinsic motivation also are guilty of pushing that expectation onto others around them. In a study of nearly 800 employees across 185 teams, Kwon and her fellow researchers found employees who moralized intrinsic motivation were less willing to help out colleagues they saw as less passionate than those they perceived as loving their job. And yet The Great Detachment has 79% of employees disengaged at work, the lowest level seen in a decade. Mass lay-offs and stagnant wages have only added to this feeling, as well as a pull towards career minimalism, as disillusioned workers instead save their real ambitions and passions for off the clock. After all, why give everything to a role when it may no longer exist next month? Still, a belief in the ideal of intrinsic motivation is very convenient for those at the top of the food chain who profit from workers willingness to go above and beyond without the promise of being fairly compensated in return. As many continue to reevaluate the role of work in their lives, its worth keeping in mind that loving what you do is a privilegenot a sign of moral superiority.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||