I didn't read your question but "yes"

Sometimes. I'll often read the comments to get the highlights, but I'll also read the article if it interests me or when I need to know more details.

If the headline sounds interesting I'll read the article.

I read the headline, I read the discussion. If the discussion convinces me to read the article myself, I will. If there's broad consensus, generally it's not worth my time to confirm what I've learned already.

I do this for several reasons:

1. Ads. Even with ad blocker the frequent text breaks are exhausting.

2. Overeditorialization. I want the facts, not a narrative. I get why that's the way the information is presented, but my time is limited and I'm not into it. Same reason I don't really like (non-nature) documentaries

3. Perspective. The author has their own unitary perspective, and I prefer to consume multiple perspectives on an issue so I can explore the problem/solution space.

If it's short, data heavy, and plays nice with Simplified Mode then I'll read it real quick, but the less navigation I have to do to obtain information the better.

Worked for a newspaper for many years. This is a great question.

Good headlines are both intended to give reasonable summaries and drive readers toward articles they'd like to read, because newspapers -- and news media congregation systems in general -- don't have a true table of contents, only a series of categories under which article types live. Headlines, at a glance, function as a table of contents in newsprint formats because of this: you can scan for what you find interesting, but don't have to intake the whole newspaper page to understand what's being reported.

App scrolling through headlines, then, is functionally the same thing. Just a different UX, is all.

If I'm going to comment then I read. Always seeing mfs asking questions answered in the article or raging about shit they imagined based on the headline alone. It's embarrassing

I always read the headline and if the headline is interesting I'll read the article.

One thing I don't do is voice my opinion about an article without reading it.

My conservative inlaws read headlines aloud like it's a fact without reading the article.

And make up a scenario about the headline. Its like angry improve for distressing yourself.

I try to, when I have the time, but I don't sweat it if I don't, I just try to avoid forming too many opinions about the topic.

Also, a good chunk of the time I try, I get paywalled. Which I can usually bypass if I'm on PC, but that's not really feasible on mobile.

Props to all the heroes copying the article into the post, or pointing out when the headline is misleading.

I just read the comments.

Interestingly, I read the full article more often now on lemmy vs back on reddit. Maybe because there aren’t a ton of comments on posts here so I don’t have context and need to just read it myself. Either way, it’s better because I get to form my own opinion instead of basing it off on other people’s comments.

In the off chance I do try to read the article, the ridiculous amount ads and popups remind me why I just read headlines.

I read the article if when I open the link, I am not immediately slapped in the face with ads that aren't blocked by uBlock Origin, an ad block blocker, or a paywall. But I'm not also not reading multiple articles on the same exact topic just because they come from different outlets. 9 times out of 10, they're exactly the same but with slight variation on verbiage because they all took the same original information from the actual original source and just re-worded it.

If I find the headline interesting, I might read the article if I have enough time.

Before I comment on things, I do at the very least skim them to confirm that I'm commenting on what the article actually says, not just the headline.

Just the headline so I can ensure I misinterpret the context fully when drunkenly ranting at my mates about it.

Depends on the article. Political or most other real world news, probably gonna either just read the headline and any comments. If it's something that interests me, I feel more compelled to read it, though.

If it's a unique event then I read the article. If it's just something like a cabinet pick, a nation's response to another nation's actions etc. I just rely on the headline.

I'm around 50:50, I read a lot of them but am prone to cynical hot takes on occasion. I'm particularly interested in social community and feeling like I'm at least present with others. Physical disability and in my case, the social isolation it causes–sucks. I'm here when I'm not able to do much else and need to escape. So that is my excuse for the times I'm not reading and the overly cynical hot takes.

If it seems interesting I'll skim through it.

I have adhd

That depends both on the particular topic and whether it's paywalled or not. If it is paywalled, a summary will usually suffice, plus I can get a better gist of it from some of the more serious comments in the thread.

If you're seeing a lot of material you don't want to see, for whatever reason, you should look at which communities it keeps appearing in and unjoin those communities. Even if they would otherwise be of interest, they are doing you harm right now. You can always rejoin later.

I mostly read the headlines since most articles these days are written to fill a length quota and info is sparse. Most articles are now full of fluff.

Just the headline for most things, especially now.

I read the whole shit more or less for 9 years, most others didn't even read the headline and just thought it was fake news. It did me no good to be so hyper-informed. Why should I continue what I was doing when being hyper-informed about Trump just gave me more Trump? I'm good. I'll read whole articles if it matters. For "Gaetz for AG" it doesn't matter.

Most of the time just the headline. If it's obviously opinion I'll often skip. If the headline is a question I'll usually skip. If it's an obviously horrific story I'll skip. If it's something that is relevant or useful I'll read. You are what you eat. That applies to your eyes and ears as well as your mouth

I read the article if I want to talk to someone about it or make a comment, otherwise I read headline, then go to the comments.

The articles almost never contain information that can't be found mentioned or directly quoted by comments

If there aren't enough comments for that to be true: the story is boring, I'll read about it elsewhere if it's ever important

Don't have the time to load these websites that take ages even when you block their ads just to see it's another 20 paragraph long article that could have been a concise 3 sentences

Lol the hurricane is literally heading your direction.

I just read wikipedia's portal of current events for world news. The whole articles.

Newspapers I don't read, and i block news articles on social media.

My subscription feed is very small, selective. Then I read about a 25% of these articles, and another 25% I think the headline tells me all.

If it is youtube links instead of articles, I click on only 1% of them. Most are just a huge waste of time even when their topic is interesting. People who post youtube links without writing a personal summary should get stabbed in their asses on both sides, so they can't sit for four weeks :-)

Depends on the article.

If it's something I have a genuine interest in, then heck yeah, I read the article. I like me some long-form discussion, so if it's a high quality article then I need to read it in order to make a high quality comment.

If it's about politics it requires more nuance. I'm not going to stay quiet about things that do have the potential to affect me, the people I care about, and humans in general. I'm also not going to go out of my way to consume a ton of propaganda. That's when the pithy jokes come in, usually with a goal of calling out misinformation or general assholery.

By and large, the vast majority of headlines are bait. You're not going to get a clear picture of what's going on from a loaded title anyway, and it's alarming how often people make the opposite inference from the headline compared to the body of the article. I suppose it's human nature to look for easy answers, but if you only look at the summary then you're allowing other people to form your opinion for you. Those people always have an agenda.

In this political climate, the news is probably going to make the average reader angry. If it does that means it's working - either because they're consuming hateful propaganda or because they're being agitated against the evils of the establishment. This is by design: you can garner more clicks from angry, frightened people, and they're usually easier to control that way.

I agree that you can't take on the burdens of the world as an individual. But ignoring problems that have no will to resolve themselves only allows those issues to perpetuate themselves. Something about evil succeeding when good people do nothing.

I read just the headline

yup, I have a lot of time so I read a lot.

If you don't have a lot of time, don't sweat it.

Depends solely on ad blocking and writing. I will if it's interesting. If it's mindless dribble or not easy to access, I'm out.

Both. It depends on how interested I am in the headline and whether there is a paywall.

RSS reader -> skim headlines -> open the full article from maybe 10% of the headlines -> skim the first paragraph to see how clickbaity the headline was -> read through the full article on maybe 50% of those.

And this isn't just global and political news, I follow science, tech, sports, and other niche interest news this way too.

Some days I just listen to NPR's Morning Edition podcast snips. Double speed. Skip over any with a title that doesn't interest me.

And finally, I discard any completionist feelings. My RSS feed will never be all caught up. My podcast queue will never be empty. That used to bother me but I have some tools to manage my stress over it a bit better now.

Personally I wish there was a way to filter out all the comments by people who haven't read the article.