[Elidrake24]

I can appreciate where you're coming from in general, but this article isn't that. All Headlines suck, by their nature they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in who they assume their audience is, so we're using the headline to place an unfamiliar country in a continent that is familiar enough, at least in name.

[sometimes_all]

That's not an excuse.

A sample from the website's About page:

> this site is my attempt at creating something that’s dedicated to discovering the hidden gems of the online realm (whether they be in the form of academic discourse, cutting-edge technology, cultural commentary, or artistic expression) and sharing them with care and consideration.

How is treating a country in the second largest continent in the world - which contains more than 50 countries, most of which have very distinct cultures - as representative of that continent showing care and consideration? Ghana is not an unfamiliar country, and most people, at the very least, know it's in Africa. If I confused Mexico with Canada, or Germany with Albania, I'd be treated as a dimwit, but somehow it's totally fine if I don't know the difference between Ghana and Kenya.

I agree with the parent comment; this "unfamiliar country" business needs to stop.

[prmph]

This is spot on. The real reasons the headline is "Africa" and not "Ghana" are:

- To sensationalize the story by positioning it as a another manifestation of a supposed "African" nature/character.

- The idea that African countries by themselves are too insignificant to seek/need to know about, but an entire continents? OK, maybe. Many people are comfortable in ignorance, real or feigned.

Putting Ghana on the title would have been just fine. I'm Ghanaian btw.

[alephnerd]

That is not an acceptable reason for clickbait.

[cogman10]

It's not clickbait. The article provides exactly what it says.

The only debatable part is that it's not all of Africa. But otherwise it's a very accurate description of the whole article.

Clickbait is "You won't believe the art that came out of this continent!" or "Look at the wild things artists did to attract an audience!".

[sceptic123]

> So Bad, They’re Good

Are you claiming that's not clickbait?

[jchw]

How exactly is that clickbait? You might not like it, but that doesn't make it clickbait. That's like saying it's clickbait to say Europe in a headline instead of Austria.

[croes]

If you claim to show the art of a continent but only show art from one country it’s misleading.

Like a tour guide for the US and you only list places in Texas.

[jchw]

A tour guide for the U.S. definitely implies that you are going to see a variety of places in the U.S. That's implied by the word "tour" which means something roughly akin to "a journey through several different places".

This is merely an example where the writer of the headline believes that the average reader may not be familiar with the country of Ghana. If the demographics include Americans, I'd have to guess they were spot on. (I'm American, I know how Americans are.)

Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana? Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra? None of these headlines are inaccurate. They're just not specific.

I can obviously see why this is frustrating but to me it's a complete misunderstanding to blame the person writing the headline.

[sometimes_all]

> Would it really be similarly offensive if a headline referred to something happening in "South America" when actually it happened in Guyana?

Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?

> Or, a headline about something happening in "Europe" when actually it happened in Andorra?

What many people here are trying to point out is that the chances of seeing such a line about a European country (even a relatively unknown one) is waaaay less than the chances of seeing such a line about African/South American countries.

[jchw]

> Yes. It's like saying that the art and culture in Georgetown is very similar to the art and culture in Santiago. Especially when you claim to be an arts-and-culture website. Would a Texan like being stereotyped by a tourist who thinks all of America is just like New York City?

That does happen, and I don't think very many people consider it grossly offensive, the vast majority of people would probably find it mildly amusing at worst. (It is not lost on me that people feel this way partly because American culture is well-known around the world, so people are less defensive of it.)

On the other hand though, I don't think that the headline being less specific means that the article is making generalizations about Africa. The article itself is pretty immediately clear on that matter.