Although I suspect there are applicable examples in literature and newsprint, the specific context here is the online practice of either including a dud, or excluding an obvious/needed example in a piece, whereby an online viewer is encouraged to make a comment on the bottom of the webpage. The author is architecting engagement to drive website traffic.
- Purposefully not including Citizen Kane in a piece or list about the best movies of all time.
- Cheekily including a Dan Brown novel when discussing or listing the best books ever written.
- etc. (but not so obvious...)
Basically, it's a troll move. A professional tactic of trolling viewership. I'm positive this is a gimmick used, and may even be taught in modern journalism schools.
What is the best term to use, whereby the largest number of readers would know right off what I'm talking about? (Or, perhaps an exacting technical term, even if they have to look it up.)
- Dissonance writing
- Purposeful gaffing
- Contrived bounding
- Poetic dis license
- Hooking the reader
- Call and response
Note: an obscure cultural cross-reference is the Bugs Bunny cartoon where a bomb has been wired to detonate if a particular piano key is pressed. Bugs tricks Yosemite Sam into participating in playing, in the same way that I'm talking about an author tricking readers into engaging.
- “Booby Trap” - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUsJXwE73QU
- “Piano Boom”