Jul
PR guy in shock outrage over heinous headlines!
Andrew Berthoff
We PR people put a lot of stock in headlines. A headline is weighted heavily in terms of the overall “value” that an article might have. Readers read the headline first, and it’s generally the headline that will make them decide whether or not to read the text.
I know that I’m like just about everyone else. When I “read” the entire Sunday New York Times, I mean that I read all of the headlines, and maybe about a tenth of the stories, if that. But our overall impression of the news is by and large created by those headlines.
Public relations people are routinely disappointed when a headline doesn’t truly reflect the story. We can work closely with a journalist, diligently helping them to acquire the information and interviews that he or she needs, assiduously providing relevant content that might aid the writer. It’s a great moment when the story finally appears and it actually contains all the rich content you hoped the writer would appreciate and use.
And then you read the dreadful headline that accentuates some negative aspect and doesn’t truly reflect the actual story. It’s headline let-down.
Daily newspapers traditionally have “headline writers” on staff. As far as I know, the reporter doesn’t bother even to propose a headline. One would hope that headline writers read each story carefully, ponder their words carefully, and then label the story with perfectly reflective words.
What really happens is that headline writers, under deadline pressure due to late filings from reporters, quickly scan the article, get the gist of it, and then come up with an eyeball-glue title. They often use lively and provocative words, especially when there’s an element of tension in the story.
Every PR professional from time to time will deal head-on with undesirable news. We’ll work with journalists to set the record straight, to communicate our side of the story, working with fair journalists who do their work and file a balanced story.
It would be great to be able to speak with anonymous headline writers to make sure that they too consider all sides before hastily putting their fingers to keyboard.
Great topic. It’s a double edged-sword for sure, but you have to admit that when headline writer delivers a bold, 36 size decree that your client’s product, service, message, etc.is the best thing since sliced bread, it’s the first thing most of us call out in coverage assessment. “Gotta love that headline!” But if the mythical headline writer - I know they exist, but can anyone state they’ve ever met a person who identifies themselves by this particular title, or is this just a function of certain editors? - posts something that is well off the mark of the actual story, we urge folks to look beyond the headline and focus on the actual meat of the story. “Headline writer missed the boat entirely.”
I completely agree that writers/reporters should offer headline suggestions - and know some that do. You’ll also see the odd time that a writer is publicly called out on a headline (usually something w/ legal or financial obligations) and goes to the blogosphere to defend or point out it was the headline writer’s (mis)doing. I suppose it’s all part of the editorial process, and with the new era of online citizen journalism these headlines (and stories) will likely get that much more animated.
All this said - how fun would it be to deliver sports headlines? 1001 ways to say “beat” - now those headlines are are the best.
As someone who took journalism in university and worked as a columnist and editor on a community newspaper I know exactly where you’re coming from. I would write the headlines for my columns, but write the headlines for other people’s stories. And yes when under deadline I can say that I would skim the article and then try to write a clever or catchy headline that would grab the reader’s attention. Did these headlines ever misrepresent the story? I don’t think so. But could they have? Sure.
Headline writers don’t exist (at least that I know of). They are the work of the editors - and although the editors know the topic of the stories, they may not read the entire article before writing that headline.
So I guess it comes down to journalists having a more proactive role in creating their headlines, and in reviewing headlines before they go to print. I agree with Steve - journalists probably have as much clue as we do about what the headline will be, and are probably surprised or disappointed in what they see in print.