This is an article about the tax cuts, though what I have to say is about the headline.
I read the article. The article is fine. It’s got information about the tax cuts which were implemented in 2017 and tracks some of the changes which have taken place in the interim. There are links in the article for referencing, etc. etc. It’s all well and good and as it should be.
But the headline…
I don’t like the way headlines like this generalize about an entire group of people. Yes, most of the people who predicted ill of the tax cuts were liberals, but most of the liberal population of America is just people, and they probably didn’t know what to think until a handful of people misinformed them that the tax cuts were only “for the rich”.
And that means that as a generalization about liberals, this headline is inaccurate.
Why not use something like “Naysayers Were Very Wrong About Tax Cuts. Again”? Put the people who gave the predictions of ill in the hot seat.
Hey, Wait! Blaming the actual people who are responsible… that’s not bad. Someone make a note of that for me. I might want to apply that concept to something. Or everything.
Headlines like this come off as gloating. Gloating isn’t going to make you any friends, it isn’t going to make people want to listen to what you have to say and is all around unproductive. So where does a headline like this leave the article? It leaves it, for the most part, telling people who already knew the effects of the tax cuts that they were right.
I.E. it limits the audience for the information to the people who already had it. It also alienates the people who it’s declaring wrong I.E. (again) the people who might really benefit from the information.
For those who are taking notes (like I asked you to earlier, come on people -sheesh!) mark that down as “not a win” in my book.
Hey, people who are taking notes – want to do some research for me too? What does “I.E.” actually mean. Besides “Internet Explorer”, I mean.
Anyway, here’s the article whose headline I have been bitching about.