The title of the piece, by CNBC’s Mike Hagerty, sounds like a real hit on the lips.
“Making a better business.
What a beautiful headline,” the headline reads.
But it’s not.
Hagery’s article is a copy-paste job from a previous CNBC piece that was also published online.
That piece also features a catchy headline, and the headline is clearly in the same font.
Here’s how the original article read:”We’ve all heard it before: You can’t win the war on poverty by throwing money at a soup kitchen, or a soup cookery, or whatever the hell you want to call it.
What you need is a better economic plan.
You need to make a better, more sustainable business model.
And you need to be the ones who create it.”
Hagerty’s copy is identical to the one that appeared in CNBC’s article, except that it’s much bolder.
And it is in the style of an actual CNBC headline, not the headlines from the same article published online, which appear in the article’s title.
Here are the key differences: CNBC’s headline is bolder than the original, which Hagerya’s copy does not.
CNBC’s original headline, which is identical in font to Hagerity’s, has a headline in the middle of the text that reads, “Poverty, poverty, poverty.
We’ve all seen it before.
But we can’t stop it.”
In contrast, Hagerry’s headline reads, and is in this font: “Making the Business Model.”
Haggenberg said that CNBC’s piece is an “obvious and egregious example” of how the media uses headlines to “push the envelope,” and it’s also “a reflection of how far we have to go to achieve change.”
“There’s no question that CNBC and others have tried to make this headline headline into something different and more persuasive, but it is an obvious and egregious instance of how we have reached this point,” Haggenberg added.
“To make it so obvious and persuasive that it makes people believe that it means something, it’s really important to try to change it.”
The CNBC piece is a good example of how some headlines are misleading and other headlines are accurate.
But Hager, a former CNBC reporter, also said that “we have to be clear with ourselves about how we write headlines, and what we’re trying to say.”
Here are some other common headlines that you might not realize are misleading:”Poverty is bad”Hagrenberg told CNBC’s Sarah Kendzior that the headline in that CNBC piece should have read, “More Poverty is Good.”
“If we’re talking about poverty, then poverty is bad.
It’s not something that we can just go around.
It needs to be addressed and changed,” Hagrenberg said.
Haggrenberg said CNBC’s title was “a little more bold than usual.”
But CNBC’s copy on the original CNBC piece still uses the bold headline, saying “More poverty is good.”
Here’s the same headline, with the bolder headline: “More PSA.”HAGGENBERG: We’ve talked to a lot of people, and they all think the headline for that piece is misleading.
They think it’s saying that more poverty is better than less.
It is not.
The headline is not misleading.
It was an editorial decision, not a headline choice.
The CNBC headline is the same as the headline used in the original piece.
The headline for the CNBC piece was also in bold, so you can see it below.
The article also included the same paragraph about poverty as in the CNBC article, but in bold.HAGGERTY: You should be the one to make the economic plan, not someone else, not your mom, not anybody.
It makes sense, but we need to have a conversation about that.
Hagery, who has written several op-eds for CNBC, said that he was “shocked” by CNBC not using his original headline for its CNBC piece, which he believes “has been misrepresented by a lot people.”
“I just feel like they took this piece and just edited it to be a little bit more dramatic and a little more headline-y,” Hagerie said.
He said that the CNBC headline for his article is actually “the headline of the entire article.”
He said CNBC should have changed the headline of its CNBC article to be more like the headline from the CNBC story.
“It’s not about poverty.
It just so happens that we have the same headlines, but that headline is so different than the one in the piece,” Hagersaid.”
That headline is very, very misleading.
We need to change the headline.”
Hagers was referring to the CNBC version of the article that appears to have been removed from the website, although it is still accessible via the