When comedian Jon Stewart was asked what he read online, he replied:

When I look at the Internet, I feel the same as when I’m walking through Coney Island. It’s like carnival barkers, and they all sit out there and go, “Come on in here and see a three-legged man!” So you walk in and it’s a guy with a crutch.

He was referencing one of several kinds of clickbait, defined as web content of a provocative or sensational nature designed to attract readers. This subset uses exaggeration or outright lies in headlines to get more views, versus a more benign subset of clickbait that uses headlines with annoying subjectivity and grandiose promises of reaction (i.e., “You Won’t Believe What Happens Next”).

Both forms stand apart from satire (i.e., “Obama To Limit Gun Owners to One Mass Shooting Each”), which is its own subset.

When considering the relationship between news, clickbait, and the truth, I see little point in addressing at any length clickbait headlines injected with annoying subjectivity and big promises.

Take Tuesday’s Upworthy story, “A Ballet Company’s Response to One Football Fan’s Sexist Insult on Facebook Was Epic.” The bait here is opinion-based. Is it sexist to say a football team played like they were wearing tutus? A ballet company and an Upworthy writer certainly thought so. Was the company’s response truly “epic”? Or was it just “great”? How is epicness (epicity?) measured?

Headlines that use lies and misrepresentation are substantially more dangerous, at least to any person who values the truth, wants others to know the truth, and despises witnessing falsities shared on social media.

Bear in mind, the headline for this article is both misleading and satirical. First, I’m not addressing headlines of annoying subjectivity and promises of reaction like “The Answer May Shock You.” How would I know if you’ll be shocked?

Second, who does clickbait “better” is a matter of opinion. Who does it most convincingly would be an interesting scientific study (Fox News viewers are less informed than consumers of other news media). Who does it more often would too, and as I spend much time reading far left websites (Socialist Worker, Mother Jones, Alternet, Think Progress, The Nation, etc.) and face-palming after seeing some things conservative friends share on social media, I would say more outright lies appear in rightwing headlines. But I’m biased; that is my perspective, not a conclusion produced by the scientific method.

But without further ado, let’s look at some case studies, and the degree of exaggeration and lies found in both liberal and conservative news headlines. You can click on the images to read the full stories.

DIFFERENCES IN DEFINITIONS

“A Terrorist Just Fire-Bombed a California Mosque While People Were Inside,” U.S. Uncut (liberal), 12/11/2015

As liberals and conservatives debate the definition of “terrorist,” some on the Right may find this a misleading headline worthy of one of the harsher labels used below. Terrorism is usually defined as violence or the threat of violence to coerce or intimidate, especially for political purposes.

If terrorism often includes political purposes but not always, U.S. Uncut is justified in using “terrorist.” (“Fire-Bombed” is acceptable, as a molotov cocktail falls neatly with the bounds of that descriptor.) If political purposes must be involved, it becomes trickier. Some attacks, such as the almost yearly firebombing of abortion clinics or murder of doctors, can rightly be called terrorism using conservatives’ definition. But others, like an attack on a mosque, may be more controversial.

An attack on a mosque can safely be characterized as a hate crime stemming from racial and religious hatred. But how cleanly can that be divorced from the political atmosphere in which the attack takes place, for example a time of widespread debate over whether Muslims should be president, be forced to carry religious-based identification (see below), or be allowed to enter the U.S. at all? How easy is it to say both “the attack was due to hatred and bigotry” and “the attack was not a statement on what U.S. policy toward Muslims should be”?

It’s safe to say that if a Muslim firebombed a Christian church, many conservatives would be quick to call it terrorism, even if the perpetrator’s hatred of Christians was distinctly separate from his views on government policy toward Christians, Muslims, Muslim nations, etc.

EXAGGERATION

“Donald Trump Says Muslims Should be Forced to Wear ‘Special ID Badges,’” Counter Current News (liberal), 11/19/2015

Donald Trump is a truly despicable human being, and has said worse about Muslims, but he didn’t say this precisely. If you see a headline like this, the article had better back up exactly what it claims with evidence.

Sadly, Counter Current News doesn’t do this. The article itself says, “Trump refused to rule out a government requirement for Muslims to carry special identification cards or patches that would identify them by their faith.”

Basically, a reporter asked Trump if his plans for tracking Muslims might involve registering them in a database or “giving them a form of special identification,” to which the heartless ogre replied, “We’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely. We’re going to have to look at a lot of the mosques.”

So Trump refused to condemn such a notion, he didn’t “say” it himself. Nowhere in the article does the writer provide evidence that the special identification would be worn, that it would be a “badge.”

DISTORTION

“2,000 White Teens Brawl at Kentucky Mall, No Arrests,” Black Talk Radio Network (liberal), 12/27/2015

“Media Fails to Identify the Race of 1,000-2,000 Black Teens that Shut Down a Kentucky Mall,” Right Wing News (conservative), 12/28/2015

What a difference a day makes. This is an interesting case study of two articles, one liberal and one conservative, saying completely opposite things.

When you read the article under a headline claiming the teens were white, you find no mention of race whatsoever!

Thank God we have Right Wing News to set the record straight.

Yet despite the fact that Right Wing News’ headline boldly declares 1,000-2,000 black teens created the chaos, it offers little evidence for the racial makeup of the group. “The teenagers involved in this incident were black,” it says, beside a photo of black shoppers, some running, from the local news station.

Is that all we get? No source other than a single photo? No estimates from local authorities on the percentage of the teens who were black? No quotes from witnesses or participants? Were 100% of the teenagers black? Or only 90%? The headline certainly seems to imply each and every troublemaker was black, yet this isn’t backed up with any actual evidence.

Remember, I’m not examining directly the truthfulness of articles, but rather if bold claims in a headline are supported by evidence in the article itself. Perhaps all the teens involved in fights were black. But if an article offers no evidence in support of a provocative headline, it is clickbait.

Instead, this author focuses his time on castigating CBS and even Fox News for being “corrupt media machine[s]” that hide facts that fail to “fit their agenda.” “Minorities behaving badly will always be unreported as much as possible.”

Would this writer grow so upset if the media didn’t report the racial breakdown of fights involving many whites, say, during Black Friday riots or after a national championship? Well, they don’t and likely not.

Apparently, calling out the young people’s race in order to highlight racist myths about the innate criminality, aggressiveness, and deviancy of blacks doesn’t quite fit the media “agenda.”

LIES

“Germany: Mass Sexual Assault by Muslim Migrants Reported New Year’s Eve; Coward Officials Accused of Cover-Up,” Wounded American Warrior (conservative), 1/5/2016

Who wouldn’t trust a wounded American warrior?

Comparing this headline to the article that accompanies it, there’s clearly distortion similar to our case study above. The headline claims Muslims attacked people in Cologne, Germany. Yet the sources used never characterize the attackers as Muslim, only “Arab or North African men.”

Believe it or not, not all Arabs and North Africans are Muslim.

While the headline emphasized mass sexual assaults, the article states 30% of the complaints during the chaos sown by Arab or North African men were of sexual assault. The majority of problems, including but not limited to robbery, were not sexual in nature, so perhaps a more accurate headline could have been crafted.

Further, the headline calls German officials “cowards,” but the writer presents no evidence of a cover-up, only mentioning others have accused officials of trying to hide the truth when it took days for the attacks to be officially confirmed. (Is there no other possible explanation, say, taking time to gather the facts? Also, does covering up information automatically make one a coward? Why not “evil”? Or “sinister”? Or “biased”?)

But this article crosses the boundary from distortion into blatant lies. The headline claims the attackers were “migrants,” which is sure to stoke anti-immigrant hatred. Does the article offer any evidence the men were migrants?

No. In fact, the only word on the matter is the complete opposite!

But the police have also insisted that many of the men had been known to them for some time and that they were not a group of newly-arrived refugees.

It’s fine if Wounded American Warrior doesn’t believe the German police. But if it is to claim the attackers are migrants, it had better have good evidence to support it.

LAUGHABLE LIES

“Obama Wants to Shut Them Down for Sharing Their Faith on TV…And Then THIS Happen,” American News (conservative), 11/5/2015

That’s no typo. The headline literally ends with “Then THIS Happen,” if that gives you any indication of the quality of the report you’re about to read.

Here American News breaks the story: the President of the United States wants to shut down HGTV’s “Fixer Upper” because the hosts are Christians.

Yet the article and the accompanying video merely talk about how the hosts became Christians. There is no mention of Obama whatsoever, no peep about perceived persecution!

Also on the site: a picture of Obama the Muslim, who redecorates the White House and dons a turban in preparation for his jihad.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

The door is opening in Kansas for the wholesale elimination of art, literature, and discussion containing any hint of sexual material. These things will not be banned, they will be discarded through coercion and threats.

Under a Republican bill approved by the Kansas Senate in 2015, and now under consideration by a Kansas House committee, teachers would be stripped of protections currently in place, facing fines or up to six months in prison for using materials that implicitly or explicitly mention sex acts.

A Democratic congressman asked the bill’s sponsor, Republican Senator Mary Pilcher-Cook,

whether a teacher could be prosecuted for showing an image of Michelangelo’s sculpture David, which depicts male genitalia. He quoted sexual puns in Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” and asked whether teaching the play could be a criminal offense.

Pilcher-Cook said that would have to be decided by individual prosecutors and juries, an ignorant statement expressing how vague and poorly-defined such a law would inevitably be (“What counts as a criminal offense? You’ll find out after you’re arrested”). It reminds one of what Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said of “hardcore pornography” in 1964:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…

Proponents of the measure insist children must be protected from “harmful material,” defined as that with “any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse.”

The bill, which can be read here, sets the stage for explosive controversy over the definition of terms, a nightmare of subjectivity inherent with a law devoid of clear boundaries. The text says materials (“any book, magazine, newspaper, pamphlet, poster, print, picture, figure, image, description”) or performances (“any motion picture, file, video tape, played record, phonograph, tape recording, preview, trailer, play, show, skit, dance or other exhibition”) fit such a description if the “average adult,” a “reasonable person,” determines it should, applying “contemporary community standards.”

No chance of subjectivity there.

The bill was fueled by conservative hysteria over a poster at Hocker Grove Middle School in the Shawnee Mission School District, outside Kansas City. The poster was in a sex education classroom, but nevertheless drew a conservative backlash for its straightforward, “explicit” wording:

How Do People Express Their Sexual Feelings?

Oral sex

Sexual fantasy

Caressing

Anal sex

Dancing

Massage

Masturbation

Holding hands

Talking

Cuddling on the couch

Hugging

Touching each other’s genitals

Kissing

Vaginal intercourse

Saying “I like you”

Grinding

Heaven forbid a sex education classroom contain a poster listing sexual habits. According to Pilcher-Cook, a poster like this causes great harm to children because it “affects their brains.”

Yes, knowledge often does.

Astonishingly, “The bill would remove…protection for teachers at public, private and parochial schools.” One might wonder if a bill requiring an in-depth, detailed sex education at Kansas private and religious schools would be tolerated for one moment by the religious right.

At Kansas public schools, parents have the right to withdraw their child from sex education courses (there is a Republican push to require parental consent).

In a free and decent society, it is right that parents worried over their child’s exposure to sexual knowledge have such an option; that does not encroach on the freedom of others.

But prosecuting teachers for using classic or modern literature and art that happen to have sexual themes confines and limits the education of others, children with parents more secular or simply less hysterical about biological, reproductive functions. One must see the difference.

Such a law has potential to do immense harm to different groups of people.

Teachers would have less freedom to use materials they like and think students will take interest in; they will stand on the edge of a knife while considering each poem, painting, quote, book. Is X harmful? Within the boundaries of the law? A single mistake could not only mean fines and time in prison, but also legal fees to battle in court.

“It makes me feel like I need to self-censor,” [Marcus] Baltzell, who is a certified teacher, said. “Now I have to consider anything that would have any kind of text or imagery or anything that would be remotely questionable by say one individual I can be brought up on charges for that.”

Pilcher-Cook thinks the list of sex acts being “posted without fear is a problem”; an activist said after he read that statement, “I took out my Sharpie and I wrote it down real big because it struck me: fear. This bill is to strike fear into the hearts of teachers.”

Students could find themselves without their teacher for up to two-thirds of the school year, an absurd and unnecessary disruption (which can hurt academic performance). Schools will have to scramble to find long-term substitute teachers, or perhaps hire new teachers. Kansas children from kindergarten to high school will experience an education devoid of many of the most beautiful works created by human hands throughout world history.

Worst, Kansas politicians would plant in student minds the idea that sex and nakedness are so dangerous that the very mention of it in school will see their teacher locked up with criminals.

The reason behind a teacher’s absence will be no secret. Do we really assume students won’t wonder where he or she is? That they cannot connect the dots between Monday’s introduction to adultery-themed The Scarlet Letter and their teacher’s disappearance on Tuesday? That more secular, rational, or honest parents won’t tell their children precisely why their biology, art history, or English teacher is gone?

Underlying all this is, of course, is the conservative myth that avoiding or delaying detailed discussions of sex with youths is an effective method of preventing sexual experimentation (and, seemingly less important than preventing the high crime of sex itself, preventing STDs, teen pregnancies, and abortions).

Yet decades of research confirms abstinence-only education simply does not work: students in such programs begin exploring their sexuality just as early (often earlier) and with as much enthusiasm as control groups.

But, unsurprisingly, they are one-third less likely to use contraceptives. Thus, one recent study showed teens who received safe-sex education were 50% less likely to become pregnant than teens who received abstinence-only education.

Studies show sex education can essentially accomplish what conservatives most desire: a longer delay in becoming sexually active, fewer partners, less unprotected sex, lower pregnancy and STD rates, fewer abortions.

Teaching sex not only broadens students’ scientific knowledge, giving them a firmer grasp of how life recreates itself, it helps them understand what’s happening to them if they ever fall into an unimaginable nightmare: attempted rape or molestation. Students learning about and accepting homosexuality and transgender identity can prevent the bullying (and thus depression and suicide) of countless kids.

When sex is not discussed openly and in a natural manner, it is discussed in secret. Due to the actions of parents, sex is seen as a dark secret, a taboo, and what could be more fascinating to young boys and girls? Do we want the main disseminators of sexual information (often misinformation) to be our children’s peers? Or rather mature, knowledge adults? This writer has heard kindergartners talk of their gay dads and second graders form a “sex club,” in which they touched themselves during movie time in class.

No matter what conservatives blame for this–a “moral decay,” the decline of Christianity, R-rated movies and neglectful parenting, loud and gossipy older siblings–teachers are dealing with the effects, and must be allowed to openly discuss sexual matters in a mature, positive manner.

Anything less is a disservice to teachers and learners alike.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

February 2016 headlines from The New York Times, Democracy Now, and liberal website U.S. Uncut declared, respectively, “Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb,” “Could Unelected Superdelegates Give Clinton the Nomination Even if Sanders Wins the Primaries?,” and “The DNC Just Screwed Over Bernie Sanders and Spit in Voters’ Faces,” fueling near-panic among many Bernie Sanders supporters.

At issue are the “superdelegates,” Democratic Party leaders from each state who can vote for any candidate at the Democratic National Convention, regardless of the primary or caucus result of their state. Superdelegates are distinct from “pledged delegates,” supporters of a specific candidate awarded to their candidate based on primary or caucus outcome.

Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz explained, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.” This statement, honest considering the history of superdelegates, outraged many who back Sanders.

Currently, with the Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada contests behind them, Clinton and Sanders each have 51 pledged delegates (Iowa and Nevada were extraordinarily close, and Sanders won New Hampshire soundly).

But Clinton has 451 superdelegates to Sanders’ 19.

There are 712 superdelegates total. 2,383 total delegates, pledged and super, are needed to secure the nomination for president at the Democratic National Convention in July.

Sites like U.S. Uncut warn Clinton’s “deep connections within the political establishment,” her loyal superdelegates, could determine the election, undermining democracy and overruling the vote of the people and the delegates they won for their candidate. They encouraged citizens to sign a petition demanding superdelegates conform to the will of the voters.

Senator Patrick Leahy, one of Vermont’s superdelegates, publicly announced he will vote for Clinton at the Convention even if Sanders wins Vermont. Which is likely, as Sanders is a senator from Vermont and holds a commanding lead in the polls.

But Paste Magazine argues that “establishment figures want to scare you with superdelegates,” wondering “if the explicit goal is to have a chilling effect on participation, and to discourage passionate people from participating in our democracy…” It points out:

Superdelegates have never decided a Democratic nomination. It would be insane, even by the corrupt standards of the Democratic National Committee, if a small group of party elites went against the will of the people to choose the presidential nominee.

This has already been an incredibly tense election, and Sanders voters are already expressing their unwillingness to vote for Clinton in the general election. When you look at the astounding numbers from Iowa and New Hampshire, where more than 80 percent of young voters have chosen Sanders over Clinton, regardless of gender, it’s clear that Clinton already finds herself in a very tenuous position for the general election. It will be tough to motivate young supporters, but any hint that Bernie was screwed by the establishment will result in total abandonment.

Democrats win when turnout is high, and if the DNC decides to go against the will of the people and force Clinton down the electorate’s throat, they’d be committing political suicide.

In the Democracy Now article cited above, David Rhode, political science professor at Duke University, when asked if Sanders could win the pledged delegates but lose because of superdelegates, replied:

It is possible. I don’t think it’s very likely. I mean, it’s funny, as I’ve had this kind of conversation eight years ago, when Obama and Clinton were facing off, talking to people from the media. And the reality is that, especially when there are only two candidates, the likelihood is that this is going to be settled long before the convention happens. And so, we’re not going to go down to the wire and have the superdelegates decide the outcome. It’s possible that it will happen, but it’s extremely unlikely, I think.

Yet Matt Karp, professor of history at Princeton University, also being interviewed, pointed out Sanders has so few superdelegates in his camp at this point it could “create a situation that I think is going to put the system to the test in a way that the 2008 campaign didn’t necessarily do.”

Alternet said the “panic” over superdelegates was “rooted in lazy reporting.” The emphasis on Clinton’s superdelegate lead “plays well with Sanders supporters who have a deep distrust of the party establishment” but there is little chance “they will come into play in the first place.”

…It’s hard to imagine the super delegates would dare to buck the will of Democratic primary voters by swinging the count to Clinton’s favor…

David Karol, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and author of The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform, told me that “there is no historical evidence that super delegates have the backbone to go against a candidate who is leading the primary and caucus voting.”

Back in September, as Democracy Now notes, Sanders said at a Democratic National Committee meeting:

In terms of superdelegates, let me say this. The people in here are smart people; they’re not dummies. They want to see a Democrat win the White House. And I understand that, you know, Secretary Clinton’s people have been talking to these folks for a very, very long time, so she has a huge advantage over us in that respect…

But I think as our campaign progresses, as people see us do better and better, you’re going to see a lot of superdelegates—I just met with one as I was walking in 10 minutes ago who said, “Well, you swayed me. I’m on your side now.” I think you’re going to see that. So, it’s one thing for people to say, “Well, you know, I’m with the secretary today.” We’ll see where people will be three months from now.

March, with its flood of primaries and caucuses across the nation, is mere days away.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Her name is Nadine. She is a receptionist at Nanyang Technical University in Singapore.

Researchers spent four years giving a Siri-like computer a physical form, integrating linguistics and psychology into her programming to make her “emotionally intelligent.” She has a distinct personality, can express — if not yet feel — emotions, can remember meeting people and prior conversations, and reacts to human beings in a surprisingly natural way.

Developer Nadia Thalmann, who Nadine is meant to resemble, said the human-like appearance is meant to help people relate to her: “This is somewhat like a real companion that is always with you and conscious of what is happening. So in future, these socially intelligent robots could be like C-3PO…with knowledge of language and etiquette.”

By any standard, Nadine certainly looks more human than C-3PO of Star Wars lore, even if his personality was bolder.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Hillary Clinton has won 13 states in the race for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders 9. The delegate count stands at Hillary’s 760 to Bernie’s 546.

This is far closer a race than most political pundits expected. Bernie only lost Iowa by 0.3%, and crushed Hillary by 20 percentage points in two-thirds of his victories: New Hampshire, Minnesota, Colorado, Vermont, Kansas, and Maine. In recent history, Kansas has always voted for the eventual Democratic nominee. Bernie’s victory in Michigan was widely dubbed, as Politico put it, a “stunning upset,” as Hillary had a strong lead in Michigan surveys just before losing.

As Florida, Missouri, Illinois, North Carolina, and Ohio prepare for their turn on March 15, Bernie Sanders has the opportunity to shake the nation again, and move closer to overtaking Hillary in the delegate count. But before the race moves forward, let’s look back at what Bernie has already accomplished.

1. MOST INDIVIDUAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Americans have donated to the Bernie Sanders campaign more frequently than they have to any presidential candidate in history. Bernie reached 2.5 million campaign donations faster than Barack Obama. So far, Bernie raised $94 million from individual supporters alone (averaging $27), a feat Common Dreams calls “historic.” Both loses and victories garner floods of new campaign cash: Bernie received $6 million the Monday after he lost South Carolina and $5 million within 28 hours of his Michigan win.

2. LARGEST CROWDS

Bernie is drawing far larger crowds than Hillary (her campaign claims she prefers small crowds). MSNBC called his crowd in Madison, Wisconsin the “biggest crowd of any 2016 candidate yet.” 26,000 people came to see him in Boston (a record for Boston, larger than Obama’s rally), 28,000 in Portland, 27,500 in Las Vegas. Nearly 400,000 flocked to his rallies between his campaign launch and November 2015. And there’s no slowing down. Thousands in Florida are currently gathering to hear him speak.

3. RECORD VOTER TURNOUT

True, this one is also thanks to Hillary supporters, no question about it. It’s not technically a record he holds alone. Yet the states shattering turnout records are giving victories to Bernie Sanders. In Kansas, almost 40,000 people voted for Bernie or Hillary, a new record. Bernie won in a landslide. Breaking a record from 1972, 2.5 million voted on both sides of the aisle in Michigan, meaning Bernie has to share that record with even more candidates, but he won the state in the Democratic contest. 595,000 voted for him, more than any candidate — 20,000 more than Hillary, over 100,000 more than Donald Trump.

4. FIRST JEW TO WIN

When Bernie took New Hampshire, he became, to quote USA Today, the “first Jew to win a presidential primary.” However, according to the Jerusalem Post, even garnering delegates in the earlier contest was a milestone: he was the “first Jewish figure ever to win delegates in a presidential primary through his second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.” Bernie says his faith inspires his progressive politics, and at the debate in Flint, Michigan said, “I’m very proud to be Jewish. Being Jewish is so much of what I am.”

5. FIRST DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST TO WIN

No one calling himself a socialist has done so well in a U.S. presidential race. Socialist Party leader Eugene V. Debs, never winning a primary, garnered nearly 1 million votes in the 1912 general election, about 6% of the popular vote. Should Bernie win the Democratic nomination, his popular vote count will demolish that.

Of course, Bernie calls himself a democratic socialist, but his policies are that of a social democrat. His “socialism” is just an expansion of popular Democratic programs — making Medicare cover all citizens (taxpayer-funded universal healthcare), expanding Social Security, using funds for Pell grants and student loans for free college tuition instead, more closely regulating Wall Street and giant corporations, raising the minimum wage, curbing the tax evasion of corporations and the wealthy, and launching a New Deal-style jobs program for the unemployed.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.