Headline Strikes Fear

As a newspaper editor, one of my favorite things to do was write headlines, and if I look at a newspaper nowadays, I swiftly scan Page One and judge each headline, subhead and cutline as if it were in a contest. Because, really, among those tasked with the job, I can say we are a competitive bunch, within and between newsrooms, and want to do our best.

While on deadline, I’d get the lead story and drop it in place, and prepare for my favorite part, writing the headline. I was lucky to have other editors and reporters who were key to inspiring pithy turns of phrase.

I’d yell out, “Marty! I need help with this headline.” Marty, being the quickest producer of good—and lengthy, when necessary—front page copy, never frazzled by deadline, would jump up and come over and we would start throwing out suggestions, beginning with the stupidest. Pretty soon the newsroom staff would be cracking up. It would spur others to throw in their craziness when somebody in the bunch, like Jane, would yell out something that made all of us say, “That’s it!” And we’d all turn back to what we were doing, assured that we were working together, turning out another great product, one that renewed every 24 hours.

Got a chuckle the other day while surfing: Being unable to avoid the strip of pictures and headlines that show up on Yahoo! News from catching my eye, I found it funny what stories are deemed interesting and how their placement may or may not be critical any more, given the short time a story is featured online before being pushed down in the queue.

These two were side by side: “Swimmer Dies In Open Water Race” and “Kate Hudson’s Style Misstep”

It was amusing to me that they were next to each other.

Clearly, one was far more important than the other.

While a swimmer dying during a race would have been lead worthy in a print version of the hometown paper, I was never going to click on that one, not being a swimmer and the story likely not local to me. And it was bad news, something I strive to avoid.

Instead, I found my curser hovering over the more important link, drawn to what could possibly be so bad as to warrant a story about what the lovely Kate Hudson was wearing. I was thinking that clicking on this story might bring me a laugh at best, and at the very least, there’d be a picture of Ms. Hudson, who has never been a disappointment to look at no matter what she does or doesn’t have on.

But I didn’t. Click on it.

It was fear I might find that somebody actually believed it was important. Which reminded me that all news is bad, thoroughly avoidable and completely unimportant.

Unless you're getting paid to write it.

Word Up

(Queen Gran's note: I wrote this as a response to a blog I receive by email.)

As a former newspaper editor, I can attest firsthand that investigative journalism is as good as dead and buried. Local newspapers cater to their biggest advertisers, and the big city boys are politically motivated.

You cannot get a factual newscast on television any more. News anchors don’t report the news. They decide how you should feel about it. “Their” opinions are rampant throughout what should have stayed a report of the complete facts.

Journalists are heavily censored in every newsroom in this country. The only fun newspapers are your weekly community papers: that’s how you find out about a town. They are not considered “important” by the powers, apparently, and are usually left alone. Read its weekly or biweekly newspaper a few times and you will find the community’s heart.

They have little budget and their journalists might also be selling its advertising and their editors doubling as classifieds cold callers; but with those multi-hats comes an investment from the heart. Nobody there is getting paid much of anything, but they all are invested in its success. Personal pride is big in those tiny newsrooms, and it’s what is sorely lacking elsewhere.

As an editor, I also know what I, and fellow editors, do to other people’s words. And while editing newspapers is a lot different from editing books, journals, magazines, etc., editors change things. I like to think I don’t mess with a writer’s tone or style, and I get writers to answer questions raised in their stories that I want an answer to when I read it; but I know other editors who prefer to put their stamp on a story.

I imagine it’s the same with translators. Nothing can be translated word for word. I mean nothing. And for one person, or even a group of people (nothing like a committee!), to decide what was meant by a word, phrase or sentence, means original intent has likely been skewed. Writings have been translated over and over, and having the language “updated” can impact the original document in countless ways , with some never even close to resembling the original. 

Americans have let themselves be talked down to, believing things that are said on TV and that are printed in newspapers.

“Why, they wouldn’t print it if it weren’t true, would they?”

Jeesh. “Sheep” is right. We have been lazy and let ourselves be led astray.