Maybe it says much about me, but these headlines that use first-person plural pronouns and the language of an overbearing mother really turn me off. "We have to have a conversation about x", "We have to talk about x".
I would have no issue with the headline "Vaccines are here. We explore the risks of side effects." The difference is that the "we" pronoun is referring to Wired, the institution, and their work to present the content.
"We have to talk about side effects" involves me, but it's necessarily a one-sided conversation. Perhaps they excuse it as a call to action for society broadly - "We as a society need to be talking about side effects". Say that. In this case, the better headline would be (if this is in fact the point) "Society needs to focus more on vaccine side effects".
Maybe it's simply my preference to see the content laid out cleanly, to the point, and unencumbered by what seems to be a conflict of interest. Contrasting this, the reporting institutions seem to believe themselves a part of a community in the same way that individuals are. The extension of this being that they can also speak for a community or to it with some authority. Simultaneously they believe they can still be a neutral observer, which is the conflict. And which community do they imagine themselves a part of anyway? Only at the most macro level of consumption is Wired a part of any community. And I don't mean to lay this exclusively at Wired's feet. This type of headlining seems to be more prevalent in last ten to fifteen years across all publishers. In my mind, the only people that should be speaking with the voice of a community are advocacy publications and hyper-local reporters.
> "We have to have a conversation about x", "We have to talk about x".
"we need to have a discussion about x" -> "let me lecture you about x"
This is how any social justice thing is generally prefaced.
Along with prefacing everything in terms like harm, lives, etc. so that any objection is already couched in "oh so you're against harm/lives/whatever."
It's a retread of US war stuff, e.g. opposing the Patriot Act must mean you're against the homeland.
And "we need to talk about..." says that I need to care. That's beyond your right to say, Headline Writer. I'll care about what I care about, and I'll talk about what I care to talk about. You want me to care about vaccine side effects? Great. Do better than telling me that we need to talk about it. Give me a reason to care, in your headline.
(Sometimes this is called "burying the lede". It's both bad practice for authors, and annoying for readers.)
I would have no issue with the headline "Vaccines are here. We explore the risks of side effects." The difference is that the "we" pronoun is referring to Wired, the institution, and their work to present the content.
"We have to talk about side effects" involves me, but it's necessarily a one-sided conversation. Perhaps they excuse it as a call to action for society broadly - "We as a society need to be talking about side effects". Say that. In this case, the better headline would be (if this is in fact the point) "Society needs to focus more on vaccine side effects".
Maybe it's simply my preference to see the content laid out cleanly, to the point, and unencumbered by what seems to be a conflict of interest. Contrasting this, the reporting institutions seem to believe themselves a part of a community in the same way that individuals are. The extension of this being that they can also speak for a community or to it with some authority. Simultaneously they believe they can still be a neutral observer, which is the conflict. And which community do they imagine themselves a part of anyway? Only at the most macro level of consumption is Wired a part of any community. And I don't mean to lay this exclusively at Wired's feet. This type of headlining seems to be more prevalent in last ten to fifteen years across all publishers. In my mind, the only people that should be speaking with the voice of a community are advocacy publications and hyper-local reporters.
/rant