AIBU to question the rise in trigger warnings on news articles?

[Anyusernamewilldo8963]

Just to clearly state I agree with trigger warnings in general and believe they have there place.

I've noticed a surge recently in trigger warnings where I don't think they are needed, has anyone else noticed this? The example that prompted this thread is on the BBC news website, the headline makes it clear the article is regarding the murder of a young child which clearly is going to be a difficult read and I can't imagine anyone clicking to read the details making the mistake of thinking it's going to be a lovely joyful bedtime story.

At the start of this article is a "warning; this page contains distressing content" Is this really necessary? Is it not a given? Why the upsurge in these trigger warnings? What is the reason for them?

The ones that really annoy me are the ones that state the article MAY be upsetting when clearly the subject matter is serious and distressing but I'm not sure if that takes my question off on a different tangent to be fair...

There is a difference though in articles about, say a child murder. There is the initial news that will say a child has been found dead in x town and how many people have been arrested under suspicion of murder/manslaughter. Versus say the reporting of a trial which might go into the level of abuse/torture that the child endured. Your heart breaks during the first type of article but the second type of article is very difficult for people to get through and if you’re in a vulnerable place might not be something you want to read.

The article that prompted the thread was about sentencing and obviously, from the headline, contained details of how the poor child died, I just don't think the trigger warning was necessary given it was clearly going to be a difficult and upsetting read.

Without narrowing the conversation to this specific article though it feels like over the last few months many many news stories contain this/similar trigger warning and I'm really wanting to understand why its suddenly become so prevelant?

Cheeky bump in the hopes someone has an answer as to why I'm suddenly not trusted to decide for myself whether a news article is something I'm in the right headspace to read without an unnecessary trigger warning...

What is the downside for you of them being there?

If they help some people avoid distressing content, what’s the harm?

They will be AI-generated, so not taking up anyone’s time to add.

I do get that they may be a bit pointless when the headline gives away the distressing content but it’s belt and braces I guess.

Kind of odd you see them as an insult to your intelligence. That’s like me saying a grab rail on a staircase is an insult to my physical ability.

Why does it bother you? You are trusted to read whatever you want.

You seem triggered by trigger warnings!

I assume it's either because customers in general prefer them, or they get applied automatically.

There is a possibility that because of overuse, no-one takes them seriously, and then the really bad ones cause a great deal of upset or worse.

I think some of them are so that people cannot sue, complain, or make some other claim based on 'we had no warning'.

I agree in some cases OP. I listen to a lot of podcasts and some of them have such unnecessary trigger warnings. For example, a history podcast about WWI says "This podcast contains mentions of violence". And then there really aren't any, other than the fact that it's about a war, which is obvious from the title.

I agree, makes it difficult to distinguish between those that are genuine and those that are token.

That is a very good question as to why they bother me, I'll have to ponder on that as I do feel I have an overreaction in annoyance when I see them, especially the ones that are glaringly not needed or the ones that contain the word "may"

To answer your question as to why they seem to have become more common recently, the answer is almost certainly because AI makes them easy to automate.

As to whether they are necessary to protect publishers from being sued, I think that this is a very small risk as it would be extremely difficult to make out a legal claim. (I’m a lawyer not specialist in this area but an adjacent one)

I’d say that the motivation is more a desire to mitigate the risk of causing distress or complaints from a customer/reader relationship preservation point of view.

Incidentally, my work computer was pre-configured with some god-awful clickbait Microsoft “news” page when you opened a new tab in the browser. I complained to HR about being triggered by headlines about death and cancer every time I used the web for work during my working day. They showed me how to turn it off but still have it as the default for all users. It’s awful.

Some people use them ironically.

This resonates as to why I think the overuse bothers me to the point of having an overreacting level of annoyance to seeing one where it's plainly not needed. I do tend to now ignore them (as in i acknowledge them and get annoyed clearly lol but I no longer take heed of the actual warning)

Yes! This is a perfect example of trigger warnings that just feel so unnecessary, clearly if you are listening to a WWI podcast it's not going to be sunshine, rainbows and cute bunnies, war is brutal for all involved and you know that before you make the choice to listen to it and therefore if war and violence are triggering for you, you'll know that and choose not to listen to it, you don't need a trigger warning to make you stop and think "hmmm maybe this isn't for me after all as i didn't realise wars were violent"

I hadn't considered the point that AI is probably automating them, hence the prevelance and I prefer this as the answer rather than the possibility of being assumed to either lack intelligence or being too fragile that without a warning "I didn't know" and therefore sue for distress.

The Web page that pops up as default at work does sound awful and I'm glad there's been a way to turn it off for you and I hope it becomes widespread knowledge that it can be turned off (or even stops being the default! However sadly i doubt that will happen) I choose to load up the news website so if a headline is awful I'm somewhat prepared for that as let's face it the news is mainly depressing so I just don't go on and check the news website if I'm not in the right frame of mind, seeing those sorts of headlines on your default with no choice in if I want to see them would upset me

Titles with "TW" drive more clicks than without.

It's in the same chapter as "how to title your links for idiots". The ones that go "We name the 3 brands .... " or "Exact moment something will happen ...."

That's interesting they get more traffic/clicks as those are the titles that I actively avoid!

The TW I'm talking about seeing so often lately aren't usually within the headline so you will have already decided to read the article based on the headline and opened it only to find a TW at the start of the story

I’m sure nobody had trigger warnings during the war. Being old school I think people in general need to get a grip and stop being triggered full stop.

It adds nothing in terms of useful communication for the reader, which is why it's annoying. They've done it for their own reasons (ie, click generation) while pretending it's for us. It just makes them look like twats.