Aww Yiss. Mothaflippin schadenfreude

  • TWeaK@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Clickbait title.

    “To me, what’s most significant about both of these deals is that they are no jail deals. So one, Sidney Powell pleads guilty to some misdemeanors and Chesebro to a felony, but neither of them are serving jail. The only reason you would ever agree to that as a prosecutor is if they are providing evidence against higher ups,” Katyal, the former acting solicitor general of the United States during the Obama administration, said.

    • Bridger@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Note that the same crimes were committed in other states where they may not be offered the same deal. They both may end up doing time for election fraud, just not in Georgia.

      • APassenger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Are those states likely to care about law and order in this particular instance?

        Honest question.

        • Bridger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I can’t answer your question directly but as I understand it there are several other states either considering or preparing cases concerning the fake electors scheme. Powell and chesebro’s submitted documents and testimony under oath in Georgia will be admissible in other states.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s not, though? The most significant fact is that despite misdemeanors and a felony, neither will serve any jail time. That’s consistent with the headline.

      • TWeaK@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        The title is clickbait because it doesn’t say what “the most significant fact” is. You have to click and go through 3 paragraphs of waffle to get to that.

        • squiblet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s the first paragraph…?

          Attorney Neal Katyal explained on Saturday that the “most significant” fact about Donald Trump’s ex-attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell, who recently both pleaded guilty in the Georgia election interference case, is that they were both handed no jail deals.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Lol dunno how my eyes glossed over that.

            The title is still clickbait, though.

          • TWeaK@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            The title should be the briefest summary of the article, the article should have the detail. This title is lacking, intentionally so, to make sure you click. That is the very definition of clickbait. It’s far from the worst example of clickbait, but that’s still what it is.

            • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.worksOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              No idea why I am engaging with you, but:

              CLICKBAIT: It means what you think it means: bait for clicks. It’s a link which entices you to click on it. The “bait” comes in many shapes and sizes, but it is usually intentionally misleading and/or crassly provocative. Clicking will inevitably cause disappointment. Clickbait is usually created for money. The second main variety is headlines to media sites which make money from page views. Common offenders are Buzzfeed, and Gawker and its affiliated sites. The headlines are designed to cause maximum provocation or interest, but as a result are frequently extremely exaggerated or flat out lies, and the articles themselves are often just as shoddy.

              This article did not cause disappointment, and the story was neither “exaggerated,” nor “flat out lies,” nor was it “shoddy.”

              My advice is to reconsider how much time you are allowing for your brain to absorb information. I am well aware that you will not take my advice.

              • TWeaK@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                Causing disappointment is subjective. I found it disappointing, because it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know or that a reasonable person wouldn’t be able to figure out on their own. If the title had said it was because they were no jail plea deals I wouldn’t have bothered clicking.

                Thank you for the explanation though. I would agree that it isn’t a strong example of clickbait, and frankly it would be hard to write a perfect title in this instance - but that’s mainly because it’s a pretty weak story. I’m just slightly irked by the way it’s written, as if to imply there was more substance.