Headlines. No, not the cutting-edge comedy bit where noted influential comedian Jay Leno reads aloud typos that other people sent him. I mean the ones that appear at the top of news stories, and on the blogs we know and love.
Headlines do a lot of things. They prime us for the news we are about to consume, like a delicious breaded shrimp. They give us a foretaste of what is to come, like a product-placement punctuated movie preview.
And like a well-meaning relative who really isn't that interested in your anecdote about your dog acting just like a baby when he whines for food -- they lie to us.
I've written a lot of headlines in my day, both pro bono and for my milk money. I've been known to stack them up to four decks deep (industry term, sorry). For a news story there's nothing more important than the headline.
People in the industry have spent millions, literally tracking the eyeballs of readers, to find out what they look at first on a page of news. The answer invariably comes back -- they go to the headline first, as though it were a tray of free bread at a restaurant (or platter of chips and salsa, if you will).
So it should follow that a lot of thought goes into writing these tricky beasts. I say they're tricky because there's a lot you have to think about. Is the length right? Should I go for a little alliteration, or a pun? Do I play this headline straight, or do I tease the reader a bit in hopes he will want even more? Am I giving away too much about the story, or too little? Does the headline parrot the lede?
"Is this too inflammatory?" "Does this pander to a specific audience?" "Is it honest?" Perhaps these are questions that get asked too little, or not at all.
Headlines are just as important to the Internet-based media outlet as they were to their print forefathers. Sometimes a headline is the only chance you get to garner the all-important click.
Someone told me that it's "sad" that headline writers online pander for clicks -- even here on DKos. Sad? Not really.
The media, in any form, are about grabbing as many eyes as possible. And we know there's as many ways to grab eyeballs as there are ideas in your head.
If you want to get attention just walking around town, for example, you could hold a sign while handing out well-worded leaflets. But, to your dismay, it's entirely possible that the man on the opposite corner who is dropping his pants and flapping his genitals into the wind might be even more successful in grabbing people's attention than you -- no matter what font you picked on those leaflets.
So when you write a headline, or when you read one, ask yourself, "Is this the headline equivalent of offering to drop one's trousers on a busy street corner?"
There is one ironclad rule of the news media in general: "If it's too good to be true, it probably is."
This rule goes for consumers of the news, but it also goes for editors and reporters as well. If you've got a source making an outrageous claim, but who isn't exactly forthcoming on the details backing up said claim, it's probably time to start scribbling fake notes in your notepad and nodding as though you were still paying attention.
Treat news sources the same way. Look for proof. Does the story back up what the headline says? Do the quotes and research back up what the lede says? Do the sources back up previous coverage, or coverage from other news sources?
The media is in a state of transition. The good thing about it is that anyone can bring you the news. The bad thing about it is that anyone can bring you the news. So we all have to sharpen up our Bullshit Detection powers.
What I'm telling you here is to be a more judicious consumer of the news. Don't take a headline at face value. Don't let a headline writer who is more concerned about driving up the site's click numbers than she is informing you tell you how to feel about what just happened.
Before you click, think about why that headline might have been written that way. Was the writer trying to confirm a preconceived notion you have? Maybe he was trying to outrage or shock you into clicking? Was he trying to disguise the fact that the actual story is thin, or lacking in attribution or substance?
Another thing: Don't trust a media outlet simply because they've been right before.
I once got served a half-cooked chicken sandwich at an unnamed roast beef sandwich restaurant. I had always loved this sandwich, and was eager to eat the one I'd just ordered. Unfortunately it was pink, cool and jiggly on the inside. Past performance is no indicator of future good returns, you know.
Politicians, corporate leaders, pundits and pop culture icons aren't the only ones who bluster their way to success. The media have been doing it for hundreds of years.
So don't think that misleading or overblown headlines at Daily Kos, or Huffington Post or Politico or anywhere else are a new development. Bad headlines have helped made wars happen, or victimized the already victimized, or drawn the spotlight onto the wrong target since time immemorial. And the Age of the Internet has yet to change that.
But the good thing is, if you're a part of this Internet media thing, you can be one person who does change it. So be careful what you read, and be careful what you write. We're all in this together.