I just read a very thought provoking statement:  "...everything is
a headline, no one even reads magazine articles in their entirety."
This statement is disturbing to me on a number of different levels.
First, it's somewhat true for me.  I generally read a headline, I read
the first few paragraphs, skim much of the rest of an article and then
the last few paragraphs I read in detail.  I just don't have time to
read everything available that I would like to read.  If the article
is poorly written, has poor grammar or doesn't have any logical flow,
I generally return to the beginning of the article and re-read the
author's name - branding that author with either that style of writing
or a certain perspective.  I generally don't read an article with the
author's history or perspective forming a preconception, I feel it
would unduly bias my conclusions.  That is, IF I am drawn to read the
entire article.
Second, I know that a lot of thought goes into writing an article.  I
recently put fingers to keyboard and wrote a one-pager Op-Ed and
expanded on an outline that's been developing for the past few months.
 I fully intend to expand this further, into a full-length article,
complete with references, citations and all the other proper research.
 When I read the statement in my first paragraph I began to wonder:
"Is it worth my time?"  If most of us only read the headline and
perhaps skim the rest, what is the utility of writing a full-blown
research article?
Third, I think back to when I, a youngish intelligence officer, first
began reading and writing intelligence reports. My boss stated that in
many cases the headline of what we write was even more important than
the actual report, we only had one chance to grab someone's attention
and entice them to read what we had written in its entirety.  In
direct contrast, many of us here read sensationalistic headlines and
have dismissed the article as misleading or sensationalistic.  I have
to wonder how most headlines or subject titles are made?
Fourth, I must admit a certain amount of arrogance.  I read almost all
articles as fully as I have time but generally within the first page
or so I dismiss many as being uninformed, underinformed, misguided or
just a plain whack job.   I also dismiss many as overtly pushing an
agenda.  It is those articles that I mentally categorize as just 'not
worth fully reading', there are too many demands on too little time to
waste fully reading a highly biased or a bad article.
Fifth, I pride myself in being intelligent but when my brain hurts I
stop reading.  Okay, that's an exaggeration, but if I have to suspend
reality to read an article, my brain goes into overload and I
occasionally shut down.  I recently read an article that was so
analytic in its approach that I could not discern what they were
trying to say.  I loved the introduction, loved the point they were
trying to make and loved the conclusion, but the mathematical
gyrations by which they came to their conclusions made my eyes gloss
over.
Are we a 'headline only society'?