The Seattle Times is not known for posting clickbait headlines and content. But as the primary online news source in the home of the Seattle Seahawks, a link they posted this morning on their home page (see screen capture) is more outrageous than newsworthy. Hawks fans will likely click the link with the expectation of being able to post withering comments that thoroughly debunk whatever confused arguments the article is trying to make.
To set the stage here, the Rams and Seahawks are playing in Seattle this coming Sunday for the NFC title and a berth in Super Bowl 60. Seattle is favored by 2.5 points. However, it’s only Tuesday, and with the big game 5 days off, there’s not much a loyal fan can do other than defend the team’s honor when misguided authors write articles like the one the Seattle Times ran. At least that’s the way it looks, until you click the link.
My own view is that I agree with the oddsmakers. A close game with Seattle winning sounds right. The two teams, longtime division rivals, split their season series, with each winning close games on their home fields. But there’s no doubt Seattle can score on the Rams defense, and our defense will clamp down on Matthew Stafford & company enough for Seattle to win. Plus the home field advantage favors Seattle.
Generally, I don’t have a problem with clickbait. I get the basic idea: enticing more page views generates more advertising revenue. Navigating the Internet with efficiency means you need to be a savvy reader, and it’s on you to evaluate whether a misleading or over-the-top link is worth clicking. And even if you do “click the bait,” there’s a potential benefit: after reading a B.S. article, you might feel better because you know you are smarter than its author.
The actual title of the Seattle Times article is “If Bears miracle can’t beat the Rams, what can? Nothing and nobody.” In it, the author, Bill Plascke, argues that by not wilting after Chicago’s miracle game-tying touchdown at the end of regulation in the Rams-Bears divisional playoff game last Sunday, and then winning the game in overtime, the Rams have proven themselves to be a championship team that can’t be stopped. It’s not a bad article. The writing is good, and the game’s facts are reported correctly. It’s Plascke’s conclusions that need work.
A thrilling win in a divisional playoff game doesn’t do anything other than advance a team to the next round. It doesn’t make the Rams a team of destiny. At this point there are four battle-tested teams remaining in the Super Bowl sweepstakes. All of them have won thrillers that they would otherwise have lost if they didn’t know how to win under pressure. To award the Lombardi Trophy now is premature.
It turns out that Plascke is a bit biased. He’s either a reporter or a sports columnist for the LA Times. He probably has blue and gold Rams towels in his master bedroom. He has written an article that will be like human catnip to many readers in Los Angeles. Good for him. That’s his job.
Here’s where the Seattle Times went wrong. It’s one of the dwindling number of newspapers that allow readers to sound off via online comments as long as basic rules on civility are followed. Fair enough. Except no comments are allowed unless the article was written by a Seattle Times staff member. They ran this article from the LA Times not as clickbait, they would say, but to inform Hawks fans about their NFC title game opponent. As cover, they appended the words “Commentary” to the link. Well duh. Of course it’s commentary. All sports predictions are commentary.
What the Seattle Times succeeded in doing instead is to leave Hawks fans spun up and frustrated due to their commenting policy without much satisfaction since the article’s B.S. was so easy to detect. Some of them might take to social media to let off steam. That’s what I’m doing.
Mud Bay Blog 