for the same reason, MSM keeps calling the Manhattan trial a hush money trial. It’s not a hush money trial, it’s a business records fraud trial. The fact that almost every headline includes the phrase, hush money, minimizes the importance and the severity of the case.
It might have been Steve Beschloss or Jeff Tiedrich who said this is an election interference trial. Unfortunately, “election interference” doesn’t fit in a lot of print headline spaces. However, not detailing the crimes and what they really are is a disservice.
"Hush money trial" is one of my pet peeves, but I think you're right about the space factor. OTOH, some of the heds quoted in the article aren't exactly short, and that subhed is downright long. In general they could make better use of the space they've got.
The headlines in the Post, my "local" paper, are worse than meaningless. They're all too often outright misleading. Post readers constantly complain in the comments and cancel their subs, but nothing changes. Which tells me one of two things: editors don't give a flying fig about their readers, or they're deliberately trying to usher in fascism. Every reporter should have to read all the comments on their stories and summarize the gist every week to editors. But journalists seems arrogantly impervious to criticism.
It’s fear. News outlets %^*+ing well know how important headlines are. They may let the inexperienced editors take a crack at major headlines, but they’re always overseeing the process. And headlines like the ones you’ve cited? Those are NOT the headline mistakes young editors make. It’s a deliberate process, it’s generally done in groups, and it’s done out loud. It’s fear.
Headlines more than any other facet of journalism have been put into the service of search optimization and marketing rather than meaning. I’m surprised this isn’t touched on. General search terms (Trump, democracy, election, power) and the sure selling “What We Know” type phrases are the ones Google rewards and digital marketers show are proven to get clicks. What’s not of interest is whether anyone reads the damn article - a click is sufficient payoff.
Yes, yes, and more yes! Long time ago, like in 1976 when I was a volunteer for the campaign to ratify the Massachusetts state ERA (which passed), I was regularly infuriated by news stories that would go on for many paragraphs reporting the lies and distortions of ERA opponents and then, at the very end, tag on a short paragraph noting that a pro-ERA spokesperson said this wasn't true.
This sh*t is still happening. A lot. At this point "Trump says" doesn't belong in a headline. "Trump claims" would be better.
Business Records stuff (over/under appraising/booking vales)? Thats a different case. This one relates to the 2016 election where stuff was fudged/hidden/etc so not to come out and hurt drumpy. So really is election interference.
Exactly. In recent times I can't help but think that the fear factor is the undertow in this media circus. While working on an old house several days ago, I found several numerous issues of a 1959 local paper, aka "insulation". Not only was the paper still intact and sturdy but so was the headlines, and they covered it all. After sifting thru several I considered myself well informed as opposed to what passes for news today, shameful, insulting, garbage, not fit for insulation. Your truly, 18 w/54 yrs of experience, thanks.
Martin demonstrates his ignorance of how the smaller newspapers in WOW and WOW-like counties function. AP’s headlines often reflect, as you rightly point out, framing that originates in the Times or Post. Some of those papers run not only AP, but also NYT and WashPost stories. The conditions on copy desks are such that often web-style headlines--most of them watery in their verbosity--are simply run as-is in print editions.
So, no, Mr. Martin, WOW readers are not immune from the sins of the Gray Lady and her Beltway cousin.
for the same reason, MSM keeps calling the Manhattan trial a hush money trial. It’s not a hush money trial, it’s a business records fraud trial. The fact that almost every headline includes the phrase, hush money, minimizes the importance and the severity of the case.
It might have been Steve Beschloss or Jeff Tiedrich who said this is an election interference trial. Unfortunately, “election interference” doesn’t fit in a lot of print headline spaces. However, not detailing the crimes and what they really are is a disservice.
"Hush money trial" is one of my pet peeves, but I think you're right about the space factor. OTOH, some of the heds quoted in the article aren't exactly short, and that subhed is downright long. In general they could make better use of the space they've got.
That phrase sounds like something from the Enquirer. Business fraud in service of a presidential campaign.
and yet, that is exactly what they did, according to Pecker’s testimony.
In yesterday’s NYT, front page, above the fold was this headline. “Sharp reversals of climate rules hinder economy”.
This, to me, is a perfect example of what you are talking about. From the headline the inference would be that Biden is hurting the economy.
It's also so vague as to say nothing
Am I the only one who is tired of reading about “low information voters in the Midwest” ?
Am I the only midwesterner who is tired of turning on World News and seeing only news about NY, Philly, Boston, and the I-95 corridor?
Getcher self some better press...
The headlines in the Post, my "local" paper, are worse than meaningless. They're all too often outright misleading. Post readers constantly complain in the comments and cancel their subs, but nothing changes. Which tells me one of two things: editors don't give a flying fig about their readers, or they're deliberately trying to usher in fascism. Every reporter should have to read all the comments on their stories and summarize the gist every week to editors. But journalists seems arrogantly impervious to criticism.
It’s fear. News outlets %^*+ing well know how important headlines are. They may let the inexperienced editors take a crack at major headlines, but they’re always overseeing the process. And headlines like the ones you’ve cited? Those are NOT the headline mistakes young editors make. It’s a deliberate process, it’s generally done in groups, and it’s done out loud. It’s fear.
At smaller papers, often the top editors are looking over the shoulders of those writing the Page 1 headlines.
That’s what I’m saying. Headlines like the examples given here only come about through a deliberate process of not saying what you and everyone knows.
Headlines more than any other facet of journalism have been put into the service of search optimization and marketing rather than meaning. I’m surprised this isn’t touched on. General search terms (Trump, democracy, election, power) and the sure selling “What We Know” type phrases are the ones Google rewards and digital marketers show are proven to get clicks. What’s not of interest is whether anyone reads the damn article - a click is sufficient payoff.
Yes, yes, and more yes! Long time ago, like in 1976 when I was a volunteer for the campaign to ratify the Massachusetts state ERA (which passed), I was regularly infuriated by news stories that would go on for many paragraphs reporting the lies and distortions of ERA opponents and then, at the very end, tag on a short paragraph noting that a pro-ERA spokesperson said this wasn't true.
This sh*t is still happening. A lot. At this point "Trump says" doesn't belong in a headline. "Trump claims" would be better.
"election fraud trial"
"voter con trial"
"defile the vote trial"
"vote stealing trial"
"fraudulent candidate trial"
"fraud coverup trial"
your turn...
They know better.
Business Records stuff (over/under appraising/booking vales)? Thats a different case. This one relates to the 2016 election where stuff was fudged/hidden/etc so not to come out and hurt drumpy. So really is election interference.
Exactly. In recent times I can't help but think that the fear factor is the undertow in this media circus. While working on an old house several days ago, I found several numerous issues of a 1959 local paper, aka "insulation". Not only was the paper still intact and sturdy but so was the headlines, and they covered it all. After sifting thru several I considered myself well informed as opposed to what passes for news today, shameful, insulting, garbage, not fit for insulation. Your truly, 18 w/54 yrs of experience, thanks.
"dubious" claims? Dubious? Aren't you guilty of the same cowardice you accuse the NYT of?
Martin demonstrates his ignorance of how the smaller newspapers in WOW and WOW-like counties function. AP’s headlines often reflect, as you rightly point out, framing that originates in the Times or Post. Some of those papers run not only AP, but also NYT and WashPost stories. The conditions on copy desks are such that often web-style headlines--most of them watery in their verbosity--are simply run as-is in print editions.
So, no, Mr. Martin, WOW readers are not immune from the sins of the Gray Lady and her Beltway cousin.
Jonathan Martin is probably still drawing a paycheck from the Times. Sure seems like it.