I'm conflicted when it comes to things being reposted and framed at new on the internet.
To many it is new. However, it's not new to me so it feels more click baity.
To many it is new. However, it's not new to me so it feels more click baity.
They’ve taken a Facebook post, and editorialized it specifically to make it sound very special.
If you wrote the same article about someone catching a salmon would you say “the fish was identified as a salmon”?
They also could have easily said “these fish are common in coastal waters, and caught and eaten all the time” but they purposefully left that out.
At the bottom of the 'article' there is a snippet:
> The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. View original post on Facebook
From top of the page it looks like standard news piece, filed under World / US & Canada. The 'article' does not mention that "it’s weird, but a known fish" as @aikinai stated in another comment. All of this is troubling.
Gee..., you can be on BBC, too!
I've also noticed they've become extremely trigger happy with regard to what can be classified as "breaking news". The label has lost all importance from being overused.