These Headlines Are Creating a World That Does Not Exist

Open YouTube and look at some Chinese-language “online television” news programs, and you will often encounter headlines like these:

“China Involved! Trump Declares a National Emergency!”

“China Retaliates Against U.S. Sanctions on Iran”

“Putin Escalates the War—Nuclear Weapons Involved”

“U.S. Issues Emergency Alert! Government Activities Suspended in One Area!”

Taken on their own, these headlines make it sound as though the international situation has suddenly taken a dramatic turn. Has the United States entered a state of emergency because of China? Has Beijing already retaliated against Washington? Is Putin preparing to use nuclear weapons? Has a local government somewhere in the United States stopped functioning?

But once you examine the actual news behind the headlines, you often discover that the events were not what the headlines implied.

This goes beyond ordinary sensationalism. These outlets are exploiting the fact that many viewers do not have time to verify every story, systematically leaving them with false impressions.

Every word may be true, but the message is misleading

“Trump Declares a National Emergency” is not literally false. Trump did sign an executive order declaring a national emergency over foreign security threats to the U.S. power grid.

But the order concerns certain foreign-manufactured power-grid equipment, related software and digital controls. Its purpose is to authorize restrictions on equipment that may present cybersecurity risks. It does not mean that the United States has entered the kind of nationwide emergency most people would imagine.

The White House documents concern the security of the bulk-power system—not the outbreak of war, the shutdown of American society or an emergency requiring the public to take immediate action.

A more accurate headline might have been:

“Trump Uses National Emergency Authority to Restrict Foreign Power-Grid Equipment”

That would still be important news, and it would tell viewers what actually happened.

Instead, the headline says, “China Involved! Trump Declares a National Emergency!” The most important limitation—the specific subject of the emergency—is deliberately removed. What the audience sees is no longer an executive order about power-grid equipment. It sounds as though the United States has suddenly entered a national crisis because of China.

That is what makes this kind of headline so dangerous. It does not necessarily contain a single sentence that can easily be labeled false. It simply arranges several true words in a way that leads viewers toward a false conclusion.

A warning of retaliation becomes retaliation itself

“China Retaliates Against U.S. Sanctions on Iran” uses the same technique.

What actually happened was that, after Washington expanded its sanctions on Iran, Beijing warned that it would take necessary measures to defend its interests if Chinese companies were affected.

That was a diplomatic warning. It may have left the door open to future countermeasures, but warning that retaliation may follow is not the same as having already retaliated.

Reports also indicated that the United States did not include major Chinese financial institutions in that round of sanctions, possibly in part to avoid a broader confrontation with Beijing.

In diplomacy, “reserving the right to take action,” “promising to take necessary measures” and “imposing retaliatory sanctions” describe three different stages.

The headline jumps directly from the first stage to the third.

As a result, viewers are led to believe that a new round of sanctions and counter-sanctions has already begun between China and the United States. The actual news was that China had warned of possible retaliation. A statement about a future possibility was rewritten as an action that had already taken place.

In a few words, the headline artificially escalated an international conflict.

“Some officials fear” becomes “Putin will act”

“Putin Escalates the War—Nuclear Weapons Involved” is even more troubling.

The underlying reports said that sources close to the Kremlin believed Russia might intensify conventional missile attacks against Ukraine. Some Russian officials reportedly feared that, if the conflict continued to deteriorate, Putin might eventually consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

But the reports also made two crucial points: there were no signs that Russia was preparing to use nuclear weapons, and analysts considered the likelihood of their actual use extremely low.

There are at least three layers of uncertainty in this story:

First, the information came from unnamed sources.

Second, it concerned what some officials thought might happen under an extreme future scenario.

Third, there was no evidence that preparations to use nuclear weapons were underway.

In the Chinese headline, nearly all these qualifications disappeared. “Some officials believe Putin might eventually consider it” was compressed into “Putin escalates the war—nuclear weapons involved.”

Few phrases generate fear and clicks more effectively than “nuclear war.” The more alarming the subject, however, the greater a news organization’s responsibility to explain the source, probability and uncertainty of the claim.

Some online programs do precisely the opposite. They remove every qualification that might reduce fear and retain only the words most likely to frighten the audience.

A “U.S. emergency alert” that was actually about a Mexican city

“U.S. Issues Emergency Alert! Government Activities Suspended in One Area!” sounds as though a major security incident has occurred inside the United States. It may even suggest that a local government has stopped operating.

The actual story was that U.S. authorities in Mexico issued a security alert concerning a potential threat of violence in Mexicali. U.S. government personnel temporarily suspended official activities and official travel to the city.

Mexicali is the capital of the Mexican state of Baja California. It is not located in the United States. Nor did the Mexican local government stop functioning. What was suspended was the activity of U.S. government personnel in that particular Mexican city.

Yet the headline omitted the word “Mexico.” It also failed to explain that the suspension applied to U.S. government personnel conducting official business there.

This was not harmless editing for brevity. “U.S. authorities issue a security alert for a Mexican border city” and “U.S. issues an emergency alert” create entirely different impressions about where the danger is and who may be affected.

The missing information was exactly what viewers needed in order to understand the nature of the story.

They are selling anxiety, not news

These headlines tend to follow a familiar formula:

They remove “may” and turn a possibility into an event.

They change a warning of retaliation into retaliation itself.

They turn the concerns of some officials into the intentions of a national leader.

They blur a Mexican border city into “one area” after prominently invoking the United States.

They present a legal emergency declaration concerning one particular sector as though an entire country were in crisis.

Add words such as “breaking,” “urgent,” “shocking,” “China involved” and “war escalating”—along with a row of exclamation marks—and a story that requires context becomes a product designed to stimulate emotion.

This practice can be particularly misleading for Chinese-speaking immigrants overseas. Many first-generation immigrants are busy, have limited English proficiency and do not regularly consult White House documents, the Associated Press or Reuters. They may never open the full video after seeing the headline, much less search for the original report.

The headline therefore becomes their entire understanding of the event.

Over time, viewers begin to inhabit a distorted world: the United States is declaring emergencies every day, China and the United States are constantly on the verge of full-scale confrontation, the war in Ukraine is about to become a nuclear conflict, and urgent danger alerts are appearing everywhere.

The real world is certainly not peaceful. But it is not as perpetually catastrophic as these headlines make it appear.

Clickbait is not a minor flaw—it is a failure of journalism

Some may argue that YouTube programs depend on traffic. Without attention-grabbing headlines, no one will click.

But there is a clear line between attracting attention and misleading the audience.

“Trump Uses National Emergency Authority to Restrict Foreign Power-Grid Equipment” would still interest readers concerned about U.S.–China relations and energy security.

“China Warns of Retaliation Over U.S. Sanctions on Iran” retains the conflict at the heart of the story.

“Sources Say Russia May Escalate Attacks, but Nuclear Risk Remains Low” still communicates the seriousness of the situation.

The problem is not that headlines emphasize what is important. The problem is that these outlets deliberately remove facts that would change the meaning of the story.

A platform that calls itself a “television station,” “news express” or “news channel” borrows the language, appearance and authority of professional journalism. It therefore has a responsibility to meet at least the most basic journalistic standards.

It cannot imitate television news in its presentation while using the emotional manipulation of a short-video marketing account in its headlines.

A news headline is supposed to help readers understand quickly what has happened. Some so-called online television stations have turned it into a tool for inducing misunderstanding.

They may not publish obviously fabricated stories every day. What they produce is often more difficult to recognize than an outright falsehood: every word appears to be true, but the conclusion left in the viewer’s mind is false.

That is the real harm caused by clickbait news.

By Voice in Between