Hacker News Reader

Comment by Spivak | Hacker News Reader

Holy clickbait title Batman.

> hundreds of thousands of children will starve to death

In this case, I wouldn't call it bait because the information doesn't seem less important than the title makes it out to be.

I'd also agree that "no one is paying attention" because I'm a news addict and haven't seen a single headline about this in the last few years.

I can't speak to the state of your memory, but I've seen headlines on it, and I know of worse humanitarian disasters since WW II. So I do consider it clickbait.

What are some of the disasters since WWII that were worse than 20 million people starving? The only competitor would be Syria.

20 million caught in famine does not mean 20 million dead.

The Great Famine of China in 1959-1961 is 15 million dead according to official statistics, but is generally estimated in the range 20-40 million dead. With many, many more malnourished, hungry and so on.

I gave several others elsewhere in this thread. (Cambodia, Rwanda, Congo.)

North Korea in the latter half of the 1990s is comparable to this one.

Vice News covers it regularly

It's not a clickbait title. It's literally the main thrust of the article. “We can’t seem to get anyone’s attention to what’s going on,” says Carolyn Miles, the president and chief executive of Save the Children.

However, the title appeals only to my curiosity about what "the worst Humanitarian crisis since [Godwin's Law]" might refer to. Leaving that out baits me into clicking.

So it's about their inability to do good marketing? That's not about people paying attention, that's just a PR problem.

Title does not match...

"the danger that about 20 million people in four countries will suffer famine in the coming months, and that hundreds of thousands of children will starve to death."

This does not qualify as clickbait.

It does qualify as clickbait given that it being billed as "the worst" over a period that includes the great Chinese Famine of 1959-1961. Estimates of how many died are in the range 15-45 million. In other words more DIED in that famine than are likely to be HUNGRY in this one.

The projected death toll is also below what actually happened to Cambodia in the late 1970s, in Rwanda in the 1994 genocide, during the second Congo War from 1998-2004, etc.

This is really, really terrible. You can say that without having amnesia about how many other really, really terrible things have happened.

Great examples. I was completely ignorant of the great Chinese famine, and didn't realize how high the death tolls of the other events you mentioned were. Thanks for educating me.

What makes it clickbait?

Vague nouns: "the worst humanitarian crisis"... just say what it is!

Appeals to contrarianism/moral highground-ism: "Nobody is"... obviously some people are paying attention otherwise there wouldn't be an article about it. There is also the ego reinforcement that comes with the person being one of the "nobodys" that is paying attention.

Grandiose claims to grab attention: "Since world war 2"... Really? Tens of millions were killed, a genocide took place, and a nuclear bomb was dropped, and you're saying this is in second place? Give me a break.

Total clickbait

It does not say specifically what crisis it is referring to.

Oh, yeah, that's fair. I guess I just thought it was obvious. But that's fair. It is in service of the point they're trying to make.

I have very little basis for what to expect in the article:

- Is this about the media not communicating what's important but rather chasing clicks/ratings?

- Is this about something that is actually wrong that needs to be paid attention to?

- Is this about the over saturation of non-profits and their inability to market well?

I guess I'll have to see for myself.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com