When you read online articles?
 

If a picture isn't provided, do you always take the time to look up what the writer of the article looks and behaves like?

Once in a while I do find myself curious who wrote an article - either because:

A - the article was so bad I just had to see who created the stinky stuff and put it in a dumpster, shoved it out to the public, and lit it on fire for all to smell.

B - I enjoyed the article, it was well written. It was either funny, or informative, and I wanted to find out more.

Most of the time articles fall outside of either A or B.
I do often check out the name of who wrote an article, but not much beyond that.

For national news or articles, I can't care less what some random writer looks like unless it is laughably bad.

Journalism is pretty much dead. The "good old days" one could read any article and it started with the who what why and where and when. More details were further down the article and the first few paragraphs had the important details.

Now so many articles start off with just worthless information that has very little or nothing to do what what happened. They start off with how they or a some person feels about something and the real information is buried in the article like an Easter egg. I just bail out, and find a better reporter or writer.

I worked in the news business back in the 1970s for newspapers and magazines. The real reporters were all interesting people, but none were particularly attractive. Most all had no photos of themselves with the articles, as that the writer's looks in not newsworthy.

Almost never.

No.

Kinda hoping for more votes on this than just eight people.

I might be interested in their qualifications but why the hell would I care what they look like?

No.

Nope.

But I do look up the pictures of women comedians I hear on SiriusXM.

It fascinates me and I have no idea why.

Off to my crawl space to check on things.

"The good old days"? You mean, newspapers? My newspaper, which I read every day, is filled with articles which start with the who what why and where and when. They don't just take the online, "quick bite of data" jump and reprint it, the actual paper articles are usually greatly expanded, rewritten, and contain an accumulation of information from the 12-24 hours since the event happened, so they're cohesive and complete.

Maybe you need a newspaper subscription?

My local newspapers are pretty bad.

I do sometimes. I’ll look up the subject person as well sometimes, especially if it’s a weird, humorous, etc. story.

I don’t know why.

We subscribe to the local electronic version of the paper. They had such problems delivering the analog paper we switched. We would get the morning paper in the evenings or not at all. Sometime just the Sunday paper showed up. The Electronic version is better, but there was no Sunday paper last week. Even days later, they did not put it up.

The local paper, The Daily Oklahoman was once a powerhouse of local politics. The family they owned it saw the future of papers and sold. It was sold several times, and now is part of the USA Today network.

And like my comments earlier, the majority of the articles start with how someone feels or some other total waste of time. The 5 Ws are never used.

There are several good local reporters, but I mostly see the poorly written national articles. They regularly have an article about a business and nowhere in the article to they mention where it is. The metro area is well over 1,000 square miles. And it does matter Who, What, Where, When and Why of a story.

^ that ^

Seems that it is primarily done when something is funny?