Sometimes the loudest opinion in the comment section comes from someone who never clicked the article. The Watertown Post takes a humorous look at one of social media's most common habits—reacting first and reading later.
Watertown, N.Y. — By Hans Wilder
There is an interesting question that every publisher eventually asks themselves: “Do people actually read the article?” At the Watertown Post, we don’t have to wonder anymore because we have the analytics. As part of Digital Media USA, we operate multiple news websites covering local news, politics, science, history, business, and national issues. Modern publishing software gives us remarkable insight into reader behavior. We know how many people click an article, how long they stay on the page, how far they scroll, and, in many cases, whether they ever read the story at all. After watching these statistics for years, one conclusion has become impossible to ignore. A surprising number of people rush to Facebook to comment without ever opening the article.
It isn’t just a Watertown problem. We see exactly the same behavior on every website we operate, regardless of the topic or the audience. A headline appears, someone reads fifteen words, and suddenly they have become the world’s leading authority on a subject they know almost nothing about. It’s as if reading the headline magically downloads the entire article into their brain. Unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way.
Psychologists have spent decades studying confirmation bias, the tendency for people to seek information that reinforces what they already believe while ignoring anything that challenges their opinions. Social media has taken that natural human tendency and supercharged it. Instead of asking, “What does this article actually say?” many users ask, “How can I use this headline to support the opinion I already had before I saw it?” The article itself becomes almost irrelevant because they’ve already written the ending in their own minds.
Then there’s something psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger effect, where people with the least amount of knowledge often display the greatest confidence. Facebook didn’t invent this phenomenon, but it certainly gave it a microphone. Today, the fastest reaction is often rewarded more than the most informed one. The comment section has become a race to see who can arrive at the strongest conclusion with the smallest amount of information.
We recently watched this happen with our coverage of the future of the J.B. Wise parking lot. Another local news outlet reported that city officials were considering an amphitheater for the site. At the Watertown Post, we didn’t simply repeat the story. We analyzed it. We looked at what successful downtowns have done across North America. We looked at economics, redevelopment, tax revenue, parking demand, pedestrian traffic, and long-term growth. Our conclusion was straightforward: building an amphitheater on one of the most valuable pieces of downtown real estate would be a mistake.
Our position wasn’t based on emotion. It was based on years of studying how communities either grow or stagnate. We argued that the smarter solution would be to preserve downtown parking while constructing a mixed-use building over the existing lot. Parking could remain underneath while restaurants, offices, apartments, retail space, or public gathering areas occupied the upper floors. One piece of land could perform multiple jobs every day of the year instead of sitting largely idle except during seasonal events. Whether someone agrees with that vision is beside the point. At least debate the idea we actually presented.
Instead, many people immediately began arguing against positions we never took. Others criticized ideas that appeared nowhere in the article. Some comments made it painfully obvious that the writer had never clicked the link in the first place. They were debating an article that existed only in their imagination.
This is becoming one of the greatest challenges facing journalism. News organizations are no longer competing only against misinformation. They’re competing against assumptions. A headline has become enough information for many people to form an unshakable opinion, and once that opinion is formed, very few bother to see whether the article actually supports the conclusion they’ve already reached.
The irony is almost humorous. Many of the same people who accuse politicians, journalists, or business leaders of being uninformed proudly broadcast opinions formed after reading nothing more than a Facebook tease. Somewhere along the way, reading became optional while commenting became mandatory.
At the Watertown Post, we have never claimed to possess all the answers. We certainly don’t. What we do claim is that ideas deserve serious thought. We spend our days studying urban development, transportation, downtown revitalization, local government, business investment, and communities around the world because understanding those subjects matters if you’re going to write about them responsibly. That’s why our editorials often take positions that differ from everyone else’s. They’re based on research, observation, and experience—not on whatever happens to be trending in the comment section that afternoon.
What we’re really trying to understand is not simply whether Watertown should build one project or another. We’re trying to understand why cities grow while others remain stuck in neutral. Why do some communities attract investment while others struggle to keep it? Why do some downtowns reinvent themselves while others spend decades arguing over the same problems? Those questions deserve thoughtful discussion. They deserve facts, analysis, and a willingness to consider ideas that may not fit neatly into a Facebook comment.
Watertown is filled with intelligent, hardworking people who genuinely care about this community. So is every other city in America. But every community also has people who mistake confidence for knowledge and headlines for research. Social media has simply made that easier to see.
So the next time you see an article that immediately raises your blood pressure, do something radical. Click it. Read it. Think about it. You may still disagree with every word we wrote, and that’s perfectly fine. In fact, healthy disagreement is essential to a free society. Just make sure you’re disagreeing with the article instead of the headline you imagined in your own mind.
The future of Watertown deserves better than knee-jerk reactions. It deserves conversations built on information rather than assumptions. That’s exactly what the Watertown Post intends to keep providing.
About the Author
