The problem with these "screaming" headlines on YouTube and elsewhere...

[kentuck]

....is that they are mostly for clickbait.

So what happens when there is a real "screaming" headline?

How will people know the difference?

Will it just be the little boy that cried "Wolf!"?

YouTube is especially bad with their headlines.

It is getting more and more difficult, not just to find information, but to also interpret it. If everything is "Breaking!", then nothing is breaking.

It makes it more difficult to keep up with the news. Soon, it all becomes a circus.

[rampartd]

1. it may have been breaking when it was posted , a few days ago

and i'm a little skeptical that trump is panicking about anything except a diet coke shortage.

i wish more of the stuff had big dates attached.

[hlthe2b]

2. They will numb the intended audience at some point so that the "click bait" aspect no longer works

I'm like that on those posted here because so many never even approach addressing the headline claim. I realize that it takes a lot for those making these videos to get "views," but surely they can at least address what they claim to cover.

[orthoclad]

19. As we get deafer they get louder

Where's the saturation point?

[orthoclad]

3. Yeah. Moonshot headlines on trivia

Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2026, 02:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The screaming gets on my nerves. It's all noise, no signal. Another reason I don't do googletube.

More information in a fraction of the time from text articles.

[68er]

4. But if I USE ALL CAPS to show how URGENT this is....

...will you click on my link, please?

[PatSeg]

17. And add the big yellow arrows

Like in a comic book.

[Auggie]

24. Especially if someone PANICS

[JoseBalow]

35. CHECKMATE!!1!

[Scrivener7]

5. We complain constantly, and accurately, that the right has a stranglehold on the

media and we bemoan the fact that we are not reaching people we need to reach. These "screaming headlines" reach those people. For example, Meidas Touch has 6.4 million subscribers and over TEN BILLION views. It routinely outpaces Joe Rogan for top podcast numbers, sometimes by 2x or 3x Rogan's numbers. For whatever reason, people like them. And they are spreading the message of the left.

The Bulwark has almost 2 million subscribers. Over ONE BILLION views.

I really wish people would just let our gift horses run.

Don't watch it if you don't like it. But they're valuable to us. They're reaching people.

[Ilikepurple]

23. I'm glad you posted as I often forego thinking clearly about their value.

I think this is important issue for us to have a dialogue about, as I was firmly OP’s camp until reading your response. It seems that I dislike these clickbait channels and their titles so much that I find it difficult to rationally think about their utility.
At first, the clickbait titles just offended my intellectual sensibilities but after many failed attempts to find the content that matches the titles, they pretty much elicit an unintended negative reaction that is more visceral than rational. These channels are obviously very popular and I forget others are discovering information or at least finding comfort in them. Thank you for pointing out that they have a pragmatic value beyond the intellectual umbrage they can evoke. I believe external dialogue is a key component in furthering one’s understanding of most issues, especially one’s we have become very emotional about. Thank you for sharing your understanding as it has sharpened mine.

[Scrivener7]

28. Well, thank YOU for that. And I'll add one more thing. Of the two channels I named, the Bulwark and

Meidas Touch, Meidas Touch is by far the more guilty of the click bait-y tactics, while the Bulwark is, in my opinion, the more informative channel. Yet Meidas Touch has ten times the viewership of The Bulwark. So for some people, those tactics work really well.

You and I read DU, so we often come to these videos having heard the news two or three days before. To us, it's almost never "breaking." But, given the subscription and viewer rates, it must be new information for a lot of people. This is perfect for us. These are exactly the people we need to reach.

[Figarosmom]

30. I agree

But I prefer the shorts and to see how old the news is I check the comments to see how long ago the short was posted. I also subscribe to those I like and get notifications so I know it's a new posting.

Some of the podcasts I admit do take a bit of time getting to the point, but that's so it's a long form news. Some are interviews just like on tv. These people get paid for these by the view so yeah, they are going to try and get you to click on their channel. IT'S A JOB.

So I pretty much ignore the headline just like I do with a newspaper. Most do have transcripts if you want to scroll down on the description section and read it.

I very rarely post anything in the long video form, I post shorts. And if I do post a longer one, I say it's a long video form.

[chia]

31. You make a good point, and so have put a dent in my antipathy towards talking head YouTube videos

I despise the screaming videos with a passion. Don't click on them, don't even want to look at the thumbnails. Don't need someone to spend 20 minutes talking over 30 seconds of news.

But... you're right about reaching a certain audience, and I'm all for that. So thank you for a new context.

[Cirsium]

33. I am going to disagree

I am a skeptic. There is no way to know if Meidas Touch and the Bulwark are effective at all. They may only be reaching ( and wasting the time of) the "already converted" so to speak.

The 24/7 Trump outrage machine is extremely lucrative $$$$ and a lot of players are capitalizing on that. I think there is a lot of grifting going on, and I think we are being played and taken advantage of by the constant barrage of Trump porn. How many people sitting in their den going in and on about the latest outrage from the administration do we need? One thing for sure - we are giving Trump a lot of free publicity and many people are scrambling to cash in on that.

[Scrivener7]

34. So you would rather not have billions of views of Democratic news and opinions.

We have to agree to disagree.

[Cirsium]

36. Maybe

We don't know if "views" translates into votes, or any activism. We do know views translate into $$$$. I think that it is displacing more constructive and useful discussion, and I doubt that it is reaching, let alone converting, anyone who is not already on board.

[Sneederbunk]

6. Not to mention the use of AI in the clickbait.

[RockRaven]

7. Another problem with those headlines is that they make people who re-post them

look like a dumbass. And contrary to appearances, I do not actually like believing so many people are dumbasses.

[hookaleft]

8. There is a lot of good information on some of those "click baits"

So much better than the fucking commercials on legacy media

[Srkdqltr]

26. Seriously? Ads anywhere give good information?

[Cirsium]

37. That's a low bar

Commercials on legacy media?

One has to wade through thousands of minutes of someone sitting at their desk droning on to glean anything useful, at least with the videos that get posted here.

Tune in to Urban View radio and you'll get more useful information in a day than you can get in a months worth of YouTube videos.

I think a lot of the 'Tubers are just pandering to people who were already going to vote Democratic, telling us what we want to hear and making money from that.

[chowder66]

9. Personally I just skip them and if something piques my interest in the title I'll google it to see if there is a story

from a legitimate source. If I can't find anything I may see if there is a synopsis of the video below or look at comments to see if I can glean anything from it to do another search.

If I can't find anything, I move on.

I don't do this very often because most of the time I know it's probably about something I've already run across or read about.

[usonian]

10. WITHOUT CLICKBAIT THERE WOULD BE NO INTERNET!

Easy enough to ignore. I *do* ignore 90% of it.

Of the 10% or less that contains some facts, I have a workflow for generating readable transcripts, and do so in those rare but valuable vids. (and post them )

My un-favorite is Mark Romano, who manages to cram two sentences worth of information into a 30 minute video.

[madinmaryland]

11. CALL YOUR CONGRESSCRITTER RIGHT FUCKING NOW!!

[berksdem]

12. I feel

like magasmash is a fine example of this: posting videos every single day w ridiculously misleading headlines.

[NeoTrajan]

13. Our friends on the Youtube 'left' are just as guilty

"Panicked"
"Collapsing"

Nah ... That's not happening

I've come close to blocking the Occupy Democrats YT channel for their breathless, hair-on-fire declarations ... David Reddish especially... But no, I haven't because they are fellow travelers....

Not a fan

[kentuck]

14. I'm sure a lot has to do with your algorithm...

Every algorithm is differrent.

If you click on Google for example, for anything, and then you click on YouTube, you may find that very subject matter, and similar ones, in your new algorithm. They follow you like a bloodhound.

I have grown accustomed to them but I wish they would put a time-stamp on them so I didn't have to look at the same posts, just with a different headline, and whether or not it is AI. I tend to dismiss AI, for whatever reason. I just know I do not trust them. I want to see real people with the "real" words they say, not a voice over with made up script.

It's easy to be tricked anymore.

[Raftergirl]

15. The only YouTube channels I watch are live trials. I read the paper for news.

Most of these other channels only care how many subscribers they can get - and the more outrageous and hyperbolic the headline is, the more subscribers, members, merch they can sell, and ad revenue they will get. It’s all about monetizing.

[BaronChocula]

16. It's avoidable when you see the headline patterns

TRUMP HUMILIATED
MAGA GETS CRUSHED
TRUMP'S HUGE HEALTH COLLAPSE

Etc. While normal headlines often feature some drama, they aren't typically that sensational. Some people may enjoy those clips. I just choose to skip 'em.

[Matthew28]

18. Sickening

A lot of the time they're literally lying to people too.

[Quanto Magnus]

20. I've been avoiding clips

where the presenter's thumbnail has them holding their head in 'shock'..... Presenters think this is getting clicks??? I certainly hope not.

That is one of the most annoying poses right now.....

[FalloutShelter]

21. RIght? We've had so many "Bombshells" we should be

bombed back to the Stone Age by now.

[mcar]

22. If it has a yellow arrow, I ignore it. nt

[Buddyzbuddy]

25. Absolutely correct.

[ffr]

27. I just know the very moment "he's" dead, this country is going to erupt, releasing all the anti-American

oppression we Americans have been feeling. It's going to be an undeclared holiday of at least one, maybe two or more days!

So, yeah, 'His worst nightmare' headlines are simply clickbait. But we'll know when the screaming headline is real, because Americans will be pouring out into the streets to celebrate.

[calimary]

29. Am I just out-to-lunch because I don't bother?

I can’t remember the last time one of those headlines sucked me all the way in.

Still a “news junkie”, though. They may get a glance from me, but usually nothing more.

[tavernier]

32. I avoid anything with blazing primary colors.

They all seem to be click bait.

[BurnDoubt]

38. YEP!!!!!

Pulpy sensationalism crowding out actual news and no real substance to flesh-out flimzy fever dreams.