“Hot Takes”: A Double-Edged Sword

The “hot take” is probably as old as journalism itself. Early English language newspapers like “Tatler” and “Spectator” included gossip columns on the aristocracy and on current political events.

While op-ed’s in reputable journals are not viewed as such, they too are often examples of “hot takes.” I’ll go one step further and say that even editorials following momentous world events are often “hot takes” competing with those from other news outlets.

Let me muddy journalistic waters even more. In contemporary journalism where sensationalism and being the first to the party is status quo, there is precious little that separates a “hot take” on BuzzFeed from a syndicated journalist’s opinion piece.

Both often arrive within hours of an event and are typically sensationalist and partisan. Speaking of BuzzFeed, while it has recently tried backing off from “hot takes,” it is pioneering the modern version of those that made it popular.

In the age of propaganda journalism and conspiracy theory, hot takes have become a double-edged sword. Let’s start with the good:

Hot takes provide the opportunity for newcomers to launch their careers by successfully pitching blogs or articles following major events. They have facilitated the success of internet journalism and led to writing opportunities for aspirants at entities such as Raw Story, Buzz Feed and Heavy. Hot takes also provide the opportunity to transmit voices of reason in the aftermath of contentious events. To debrief and ground the public before propaganda and hate mongering takes center-stage.

Unfortunately though, hot takes have become the vanguard for the most dangerous and irresponsible journalism of our times.
The supreme example of this is the ready-to-go propaganda pieces unleashed during the 2016 presidential elections.

The relentless assault of one-sided, undisguised propaganda successfully obscured the facts relevant to a presidential election. Sloganeering and ad hominem attacks determined the election outcome more than anything else. What made the lies more effective was the fact that they often came in the form of “hot takes” following each primary or other political development.

Similarly, the massive propaganda machinery operating on both sides in the Syrian conflict has succeeded in abetting the murder of Syrians. Instead of any momentum towards forcing a peace resolution the world has been driven to taking sides and cheering atrocities on.

So: how does one manage to navigate the flood of hot takes whilst maintaining integrity and being a positive force? How does one resist becoming part of the three-ring circus of sensationalism and agit-prop?

Let’s keep it simple: Follow two cardinal principles, which should not only help in doing a “hot take” but in any journalistic effort.

1. Don’t give into the temptation (or even editorial expectation) of being sensationalist and partisan. Try to give your opinion on the events unfolding and assign blame if it is to be assigned, without prejudice.

2. Maintain veracity for all claims you make. No matter how limited the time at your disposal, do not make up or guess your facts. If you make an assertion, make sure you corroborate your information with more than one reliable source. If you don’t have one, mention that what you are stating is purely your own belief.

In conclusion, hot takes are an inevitable part of contemporary blogging and journalism. We must make sure though that journalistic integrity is not compromised and that we do not contribute to the dissemination of half-truths and lies.