[Villages PL]

When you read the newspaper, if you're like most people, you read the article or column heading first. And you use the heading/headline to decide whether or not to read what follows. Some articles you will read and some you won't, it just depends on what grabs your interest.

In order for this method to work well, it's important that the heading accurately reflect what's in the article. But I have found this to be lacking at times. Caution: headlines can be misleading!

Case in point: In the "health" section I read a column headline as follows: "Lessen cancer risk with more protein". When you read that headline, what is your immediate thought? What kind of protein would you picture? I believe you would picture all kinds of animal protein such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy, right? And you might think your diet already contains enough protein so why bother waisting time reading about it. You might move along to the next heading.

Well, you would have been wrong. There was nothing in the article about animal protein. The subject was about vegetable protein and the potential of it being able to lower one's risk for breast cancer.

The heading could easily have been: "Lessen cancer risk with vegetable protein." And that would have been a much more accurate reflection of what the article was about.

What good is a newspaper if you can't rely on accurate headings or headlines? Who has the time to read every article or column? Practically no one. So we need headings that accurately reflect the content of the article or column. Then we can decide whether or not to read it.

When I called the newspaper to complain about this, the person in charge of the health section was very defensive about it. She chalked it up to just being a matter of opinion and didn't think anyone would get the wrong impression by just reading the heading.

You have to wonder how many articles you passed up because you got the wrong impression of what it was about.

[Golfingnut]

Very good point. I have been victim many times to spicy headers on bland articles.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

Very good point. I have been victim many times to spicy headers on bland articles.

I wasn't thinking about that but that could happen too. And it has happened to me. I keep thinking there will be some new information about some event or accident and it's just the same information being repeated all over again.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

When you read the newspaper, if you're like most people, you read the article or column heading first. And you use the heading/headline to decide whether or not to read what follows. Some articles you will read and some you won't, it just depends on what grabs your interest.

In order for this method to work well, it's important that the heading accurately reflect what's in the article. But I have found this to be lacking at times. Caution: headlines can be misleading!

Case in point: In the "health" section I read a column headline as follows: "Lessen cancer risk with more protein". When you read that headline, what is your immediate thought? What kind of protein would you picture? I believe you would picture all kinds of animal protein such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy, right? And you might think your diet already contains enough protein so why bother waisting time reading about it. You might move along to the next heading.

Well, you would have been wrong. There was nothing in the article about animal protein. The subject was about vegetable protein and the potential of it being able to lower one's risk for breast cancer.

The heading could easily have been: "Lessen cancer risk with vegetable protein." And that would have been a much more accurate reflection of what the article was about.

What good is a newspaper if you can't rely on accurate headings or headlines? Who has the time to read every article or column? Practically no one. So we need headings that accurately reflect the content of the article or column. Then we can decide whether or not to read it.

When I called the newspaper to complain about this, the person in charge of the health section was very defensive about it. She chalked it up to just being a matter of opinion and didn't think anyone would get the wrong impression by just reading the heading.

You have to wonder how many articles you passed up because you got the wrong impression of what it was about.

A pet peeve of mine....well, media in general, but the misleading headlines that catch your eye.

This is an oft used tactic by some newspapers that have a strong tie to a political view and knowing that most folks do not read below the sub headline use that to intentionally mislead the person who is scouring headlines, which unfortunately encompasses most readers.

A paper in Tampa is nationally known for this tactic, but if you want a real example.....someday when there is breaking political news bring up the New York Daily News and the New York Post at the same time.....same story but if you stopped at the headline, you will have a completely different twist on it.

There are a number of websites that employ the same tactic. One was used on here in the gun debate....headline was a total lie, and if you read the article it was all...could be's, might be;'s etc.

Problem is that most people do not read....they skim the headlines and move on. That is why the cable news channels are popular. You can tell folks how well informed you are by watching the HEADLINE news, BUT you are not well informed. You are manipulated by editors and such who want to potray a story in a certain way with a certain spin.

[Bonnevie]

sometimes it's not nefarious at all....it's a matter of font and type size...for instance "vegetable" is many more syllables than "more" so may not have fit
the purpose of a headline is to get you to read the story....

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

sometimes it's not nefarious at all....it's a matter of font and type size...for instance "vegetable" is many more syllables than "more" so may not have fit
the purpose of a headline is to get you to read the story....

True, but it is also like those ads on television. The ones that make the loud claims with the great pictures, and underneath all the small print that you do not read.

As with those ads, if you truely want to know facts, you better stop and read in depth about whatever it is you are interested in.

Reading, to me anyway, is one of the things that has gone by the wayside...we sort of want folks to tell us what the facts are....not pursue them ourselves....we want people to tell us how we feel, not investigate and make our own decisions.

Companies and politicians spend millions, no BILLIONS because they know that we do not want to actually read anything nor investigate on our own...they want to be the ones to tell you all about it.

[bkcunningham1]

It is sensationalism. It is seedy tabloid style journalism if you don't like it, and it is creative wordplay if you do, Bucco. It has been around since the dawn of time. You are right, Bucco. The Huffington Post and The New York Post are two examples of media who uses sensationalism headlines with just enough of a twist to make something seem a certain way but if you bother to read the story, you realize you may have been mislead. If someone is too lazy to read the entire story, whose to blame?

I've seen it many times on TOTV and other forums where someone will post an article and write a their own "headline" and editorialize the article. Sometimes it is flame bait and many people will comment without having ever read the story. It is used to get reactions and it usually works. I never liked that style of writing. I like creative headlines but not sensational headlines that push for a reaction when there isn't a story to back it up.

You have to remember too that most headlines are written by someone other than the writer of the article. Like Bonnevie said, they are also written as space allows. Oftentimes the headline comes with the story and the copy editor putting the page together doesn't bother reading the entire story and just crops the headline to fit the space. So, the OPs story may have had the word vegetable in it but it got
cut out.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by bkcunningham1

It is sensationalism. It is seedy tabloid style journalism if you don't like it, and it is creative wordplay if you do, Bucco. It has been around since the dawn of time. You are right, Bucco. The Huffington Post and The New York Post are two examples of media who uses sensationalism headlines with just enough of a twist to make something seem a certain way but if you bother to read the story, you realize you may have been mislead. If someone is too lazy to read the entire story, whose to blame?

I've seen it many times on TOTV and other forums where someone will post an article and write a their own "headline" and editorialize the article. Sometimes it is flame bait and many people will comment without having ever read the story. It is used to get reactions and it usually works. I never liked that style of writing. I like creative headlines but not sensational headlines that push for a reaction when there isn't a story to back it up.

You have to remember too that most headlines are written by someone other than the writer of the article. Like Bonnevie said, they are also written as space allows. Oftentimes the headline comes with the story and the copy editor putting the page together doesn't bother reading the entire story and just crops the headline to fit the space. So, the OPs story may have had the word vegetable in it but it got
cut out.

Good post from someone who has been in the journalism field.

[BobnBev]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

When you read the newspaper, if you're like most people, you read the article or column heading first. And you use the heading/headline to decide whether or not to read what follows. Some articles you will read and some you won't, it just depends on what grabs your interest.

In order for this method to work well, it's important that the heading accurately reflect what's in the article. But I have found this to be lacking at times. Caution: headlines can be misleading!

Case in point: In the "health" section I read a column headline as follows: "Lessen cancer risk with more protein". When you read that headline, what is your immediate thought? What kind of protein would you picture? I believe you would picture all kinds of animal protein such as meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy, right? And you might think your diet already contains enough protein so why bother waisting time reading about it. You might move along to the next heading.

Well, you would have been wrong. There was nothing in the article about animal protein. The subject was about vegetable protein and the potential of it being able to lower one's risk for breast cancer.

The heading could easily have been: "Lessen cancer risk with vegetable protein." And that would have been a much more accurate reflection of what the article was about.

What good is a newspaper if you can't rely on accurate headings or headlines? Who has the time to read every article or column? Practically no one. So we need headings that accurately reflect the content of the article or column. Then we can decide whether or not to read it.

When I called the newspaper to complain about this, the person in charge of the health section was very defensive about it. She chalked it up to just being a matter of opinion and didn't think anyone would get the wrong impression by just reading the heading.

You have to wonder how many articles you passed up because you got the wrong impression of what it was about.

I would have called back, and asked to speak to an editor.

[zcaveman]

Originally Posted by BobnBev

I would have called back, and asked to speak to an editor.

Many of these articles are from other news sources and are printed exactly as they are received. The editor does not have a say in the title.

Z

[Nipper]

My first professional job was wire editor of a daily newspaper. I did layout and wrote all the headlines for AP stories. Every paper I worked on had headline writers for wire stories. The daily sun misleads the reader with many of its wire story headlines everyday.

[rubicon]

The OP touches on a very important issue and that is the decline of news reporting starting with the fact that many entering college for a degree in journalism had to enroll in remedial English first, to the lack of investigative journalist, to the fact that television employs handsome or beautiful talking heads who read what they are given, to a profession that has developed a very bitter bias and hence lacks effectiveness in clarity, honesty and facts.

the competition to provided 24/7 news and hence market share has added to dilemma. A democracy cannot survive without a press free from bias, guided by ethics and motivated to present factual stories

[Bonnevie]

sorry, I just don't understand the outrage here....if you don't want to read the whole article, just read the first paragraph. The most important facts should be at the beginning..

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Bucco

A pet peeve of mine....well, media in general, but the misleading headlines that catch your eye.

This is an oft used tactic by some newspapers that have a strong tie to a political view and knowing that most folks do not read below the sub headline use that to intentionally mislead the person who is scouring headlines, which unfortunately encompasses most readers.

A paper in Tampa is nationally known for this tactic, but if you want a real example.....someday when there is breaking political news bring up the New York Daily News and the New York Post at the same time.....same story but if you stopped at the headline, you will have a completely different twist on it.

There are a number of websites that employ the same tactic. One was used on here in the gun debate....headline was a total lie, and if you read the article it was all...could be's, might be;'s etc.

Problem is that most people do not read....they skim the headlines and move on. That is why the cable news channels are popular. You can tell folks how well informed you are by watching the HEADLINE news, BUT you are not well informed. You are manipulated by editors and such who want to potray a story in a certain way with a certain spin.

Thanks, that's a very good example.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Bonnevie

sorry, I just don't understand the outrage here....if you don't want to read the whole article, just read the first paragraph. The most important facts should be at the beginning..

You probably would understand the "outrage" if you could see the "type-size" of the headline. There would easily be enough room for 3 times as many words in the heading. The overall column width took up 2/3 of the page with only 6 words in the heading. The adjoining column that only took up 1/3 of the page had ten words in the heading (i.e., less room but more words).

Reading the first paragraph would not have revealed the all important information. It didn't come until the seventh paragraph.

This column is only one isolated example. I have another one about protein. This column had the following heading in quite large bold print:

"High-protein diets: Bad for the middle-aged, good for the elderly"

The first part of the heading (according to the study) is true, but the second half is untrue.

Again, you would have to read down to the seventh paragraph to get to the all important information. The recommendation, by the author of the study, is for those elderly who are "entering a period of growing frailty". The study indicated a need for a "higher intake" of protein, with a preference for plant based protein. Contrary to what the heading implied, there was no call for all elderly people to eat high protein diets. "Higher intake" does not constitute a "high protein diet". "Higher intake" means getting adequate protein.

The heading couldn't have been more misleading.