Huffington Post Baiting Stoners With An Ice Cream Burrito

I love ChocoTacos, so I think an ice cream burrito sounds heavenly and I definitely would want to hear about it. So what could I possibly have against HuffPost Taste's article "Ben & Jerry's BRRR-ito Is Bringing Ice Cream And Burritos Together At Last"?

Well, this is how they presented it on Facebook.

The BRRR-ito, which will only be served in Ben & Jerry's scoop shops, makes its debut on April 20th. The article fails to deliver on the bait, responsibly reporting on the ice cream dream and waiting until the closing line to make any obligatory 4/20 mentions. And despite the April 20th launch of waffle coned heaven, the article would have been fine without any 4/20 mentions. It's an ice cream burrito; that is an all the time treat.

Commit to playing up 4/20 or don't, but the half-assed attempt at being hip makes this article 91% click bait.

EW Appeals to 90s Kids and Wildly Misses the Mark

Why does the Internet appeal directly to 90s kids? I mean, it's kind of a no-brainer. The Internet itself is a 90s kid, and all those self-absorbed teens we associate with the Internet? All molded from the Web 2.0 prototype who learned HTML and made Geocities pages with blinks and marquees to tell the world about themselves. 90s kids have always been here, so it doesn't take much effort to grab their eyeballs.

Appealing to a 90s kid is multi-layered click-bait. First, it plays on the emotions of those who identify as 90s kids - but if a 90s kid deems an article to be on the mark, all is easily forgiven. However, appealing to 90s kids also appeals to those outside of the generation so they can tell you how the list also appeals to them. Genius marketing tactic really- if you do it right.

Entertainment Weekly's The Community posted "9 kids' shows that also deserve a 'Full House'-type revival," which I do have to give them credit - that title is not that click-baity. But, this is how it was presented on Facebook:

They even changed the title to "9 nostalgic shows that deserve a reboot" and appealed directly to 90s kids - and they ultimately do not deliver on either.

It started okay. The article said that since Duck Tales and Full House are getting reboots (shows that came out in the 80s, but I digress), other shows should, too. They appeal directly to 90s kids in the article - "it sure is a great time to be a 90s kid" - and though they try to make it more general in the same sentence with "or just a fan of quality children's entertainment," the bait has already been set.

The list starts off just fine. I know I wouldn't be opposed to an Eerie, Indiana reboot - though being one of the ones who saw The Other Dimension, I would hope it would have adult Marshall, Simon, and Dash X. Then it ventures to the borderline. I'm an older 90s kid, and I watched new Nicktoons and Disney channel shows into my mid-20s, so I can assume younger 90s kids really would claim things like The Proud Family as their show.

But then it just gets straight up hinky. Isn't Class of 3000 strictly a 2000s kids' show? And Young Justice ran from 2011 to 2013. That's not even nostalgic, not even kid nostalgic. I remember asking my friends if they remembered shows from 1991 in, like, 1996 - but 5 years is a big deal in kid years. Two years isn't.

What had potential to be a fun entertainment article was marred by it's choice of bait. Sorry, EW, your article is 79% click-bait.

Anti-Click Episode 1: Daria, Game of Thrones, Coffee, and Live Video

This is what the copy actually said, to better understand my ramblings. Yes, that sucky intro was part of the copy:

Hello, welcome to Anti-Click, where I read click-bait so you don't necessarily have to. Filmed on location at scenic wherever I find wifi, I am your host, Amanda, and I blow at introductions, so let's get to it.

They say inspiration is the mother of invention, and MTV News's article "Science Finally Explains Why You Get 'Daria' And All Her Sarcasm" definitely inspired this vlog. If you're sitting there thinking science has better things to do than tell you why you get Daria, you are absolutely right. It was not a slow science week. Rather, a group of researchers at John Hopkins University investigated why some stroke survivors have difficulty detecting sarcasm and found that damage to the sagittal sreatum could be to blame. Daria was attached to an actually interesting news story as an afterthought. Can MTV News not report news without a pop culture twist, because I think the "news" part of their name would make that okay sometimes. And given how long it's been since Daria's been on MTV, it really seems like a strange choice of show to use as bait.

But it is MTV. Maybe they can use their brand to justify themselves. I would like to see Time justify "These Are the 25 Most-Highlighted Game of Thrones Quotes", a tech article that talks about the books. Where is the tech twist, you may wonder. Oh, don't worry, it's there. Amazon provided the most-highlighted quotes from their Kindle e-readers. I don't know what weirds me out more -the fact this was an article on Time and not Buzzfeed, or that Amazon knows what you highlight and reports it to the press.

Speaking of Buzzfeed, this vlog would be lacking if I never mentioned them. This week, I decided to go with "19 Genius New Ways to Drink Your Coffee." Let's be honest, there's two ways to drink your coffee - with or without a straw. The article doesn't introduce you to drinking coffee while stnding on your head. What it really should be called is "Some Interesting Coffee Drinks to Try If You Haven't Already," but no one would click on that.

I have time for one more article, so I chose Tech Crunch's "Live Video Is the New Click Bait." I had wanted to give it points for having the least click-baity title, despitr the fact the title itself fails to acknowledge how long live video has been on the Internet. I can name YouTubers who had live shows six years ago. Reading the article did not improve my opinion. It really only says live video is the new click bait. Was it a slow tech news week? I believe this article itself is 84% pure click-bait.

Thank you for joining me this week. Tell me what you think or suggest articles in the comments below, and I'll be back next week to deconstruct more bait.

Introduction

This is the blog that goes with the Anti-Click vlog that can be found on YouTube. The vlog will be a once a week thing, whereas the blog will review articles I decide not to put in the weekly vlog. But since this was an impulse decision, I decided to explain some things.

Why film at scenic where you find wifi?
So I can upload right away and not chicken out. I can get better, but not if I don't put myself out there.

Do you really think you can get better?
My tripod is a purse anf I'm reading copy from notebook paper. That's production values; that's cosmetic. I can't change my voice, but with practice, I can read better.

Why the blog?
So I don't have to embarrass myself on camera everyday. Every week is plenty.

Why click-bait?
Because I already read it, and hate myself for it, so at least this way I can lie to myself and say I'm doing serious research.

Isn't this a form of click-bait?
I mean, yes, technically. But it is for the really good cause of me hating myself less for reading click-bait.

I hope you stick around, check things out. Feel free to make suggestions or even make fun of me. I don't care. But I would be grateful for constructive criticism and articles to review.