The Seven Sentence Principle
21 June, 2020
TLDR: Sensationalist headlines are designed to enrage, manipulate, and provoke hasty social sharing.
Blindly sharing sensationalist headlines actively undermines the cause the sender means to support, because (1) opponents can use the discrepancies and exaggeration as ammunition against the sender's intended cause and (2) undecided observers will retract strongly when they recognize the inaccuracy and exaggeration.
The Seven Sentence Principle says you should refrain from sharing, or becoming enraged by, a headline or sound byte until after you've read at least the first seven sentences supporting the headline.
Birth of The Seven Sentence Principle
I observed recently that a few friends were becoming angry with me when I did not become immediately-righteously-indignant about the political sound bytes they were presenting to me. When I asked clarifying questions they acted as though this was an affront to the commendable political positions that the "Rage-Headlines" were targeting.
These folks are reasonable and intelligent; and I do align with them on most views.... but this pattern repeated itself quite a few times over the course of the weekend.
When I asked for clarification on points that were vague or unmentioned it had two effects: (1) They would continue to become more frustrated with me and (2) As they read more deeply in the article it would become clear that the headline was twisting and exaggerating the facts it was referencing.'
Exmaple -- One friend said "Did you hear that the guy who murdered George Floyd is going to get a multi million dollars when he's convicted?" Upon further review of the headline he was paraphrasing, it turned out that the written headline was "Officer charged with killing George FLoyd still eligible for $1 Million." As he read further it became clear that the foundation of the headline was effectively: "nothing in current Minnesota law wouldn't explicitly make him ineligible for an annual pension; and there is a possiblity that over many decades that could total over a million dollars."
The headline initially presented by my friend felt somewhat deceptive to me once we drilled down to the supporting facts. I would have found a headline more genuine that said something like "Under minnesota law the officer responsible for killing George Floyd is not automatically ineligible for pension." But clicks pay, and sensible measured headlines don't drive clicks.
At a personal level I do certainly hope that (1) they are convicted, (2) they face stern justice for their actions, and (3) there are no loopholes exploited.
Going Deeper
What really struck me about that conversation, was how much that exaggerated original headline undermines "The Cause." (whatever your "Cause" may be).
Upon hearing a clearly exaggerated headline, folks on the opposite side of an issue can easily cite that incorrect headline as Fake News, and use it as ammunition to discredit the validity of all arguments in favor of "The Cause."
The headline, and many like it, are designed to manipulate and persuade-in-bad-faith. The intent of such a headline is to get web clicks and shares. Unfortunately, as with any quick-hit bad-faith persuasive techniques, when the actual facts become clear any temporary persuasion of an undecided observer is reversed and that observer is less likely to promote "The Cause."
Enter The Seven Sentence Principle. Which, again, recommends that: We should read, and understand, at least the first seven sentences of an article or soundbyte before we (1) share it or (2) become enraged by it.
Second Take
If the negative effect of these Rage-Headlines is not resonating with you yet, think about the last time you encountered a headline opposing your view that was clearly inaccurate.
Example -- A friend shared a meme claiming to speak on behalf of BLM. The meme had a BLM 'ish' graphic and presented 'false flag' statements like "We will not stop until white people pay extra taxes to support black individuals" and "Hate is OK if directed at white families."
To me, and probably others, this is blatant ridiculousness and does not represent the views of the BLM movement. My opinion of the person sharing it decreased, and I thought to myself "what are they even thinking... they're not living in the real world."
This is an example of the wedges that are being deeply (and perhaps intentionally) driven in our comunity dialog. It is unquestionably detrimental to reasonable and productive dialog. If you were struggling to internalize the nature of the problem-statement, I'm hopeful that the context of media that goes agaisnt your views has helped to make the problem clear.
If that individual would have done even seven sentences of reading into the actual views of the BLM movement then it would have been obvious that the meme was a cynical manipulative fabrication.
Some clarifying points:
-This message is directed at folks engaging in good faith.... those genuinely seeking positive progress in our communities large-and-small. Some people are engaging maliciously and cynically... and there is nothing I could write here to prevent those people from doing their thing.
-I'm definitely not saying "both sides are equal" in their use of deceptive tactics and bad-faith maneuvering. They are not. I would even take some issue with framing the nuance and complexity of our current landscape as only "two sides."
- The Seven Sentence Principle, of course, doesn't mean you are only limited to reading and understanding seven sentences... reading beyond that is fantastic and highly encouraged.
- This web page is not an attempt to pacify people or say there are not things going on right now that we absolutely should be enraged about. There are.
-This page, and The Seven Sentence Principle, is saying that undermining those very real issues and arguments with hyperbole and sensationalist headlines that don't stand up is actively detrimental to "The Cause."
-We need to be repeating quality conversation points at this pivotal time in history. Distracting from those points with quantity in the form of exaggerated or disingenuous headlines is detrimental to progress.
Further musings:
-President Trump ordered violence, tear gas, and a dangerous low-altitude military helicopter intimidation-maneuver on peaceful protesters exercising their consitutional right to assemble and protest in Lafayette Park. It would be more productive to hear that point repeated 500 times, than it would be to hear 500 hyperbolic rage-headlines that reveal themselves in short order as manipulative and don't stand up to even a cursory review. Sharing BS that isn't well supported or is intentionally manipulative hurts "The Cause."
-You've surely heard folks dismissing the calls to 'defund the police' by framing it as though all police would be removed entirely and immediately. If you're someone making that point genuinely, then (1) I appreciate you remaining genuine and (2) I'm here to tell you that you've not listened to the message closely enough. The intent of the message is to reduce the budgets and scope of police. As the police gained funding at the expense of other programs; the police inherited the problems that are better handled by those alternate programs. The phrase "Defund the police" is a call to re-allocate those shared resources to these more-relevant and more-effective channels (at least thats my understanding of the general consensus on the core message.... I suppose I can't speak for everyone). A final comment of reassurance to the folks saying hastily "but, but, but, who would come to my house when an armed robber breaks in?" .... the answer would still be "the police."
-Do you like being manipulated? I don't. When someone publishes a rage-headline that doesn't responsibly align to the facts, they are doing nothing short of intentionally manipulating you. They're manipulating you to gain your clicks, your social media shares, and your attention. You are the product, and the group publishing that rage-headline is not your ally.
Summary
Maybe these thoughts will give some folks pause. Maybe they won't. There is plenty of reason to be enraged right now, but there is also plenty of time to rise to the rage. It doesn't need to be a split-second reaction. Lets just all be a bit more measured and discerning about the persuasive material we come across and about what we allow to persuade us. We need "slow-burn" rage right now... not flash in the pan impulse-reactions. We get plenty of that from the cynical manipulators currently occupying the White House.
An actionable thing we can all do, and can hold our friends to, is -- withold rage and refrain from social sharing until you've internalized at least the first seven sentences of the asset you're consuming. That's a fairly low bar, and I belive it would improve the quality of our collective dialog.
If you'd like to share thoughts or feedback with me, you can email [email protected]. I may respond, and I may even put insightful comments at the bottom of this web page, with your permission. Thanks for reading, have a good day.
Post Script - If you're so moved by these ideas that you feel compelled to donate your hard earned money somewhere, please direct that noble contribution to the ACLU. If you're comfortable letting me know about your donation please email the address above, and I'll keep a tally on this page. As of mid-June I've led it off with fifty bucks myself.